Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 03273 6457 




San Francisco Public Library 



., 



n Center 
SanF. >rary 

100 Larkm Street. 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



REFERENCE BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 



LSOD 
no. I 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS DGPT. 

JAN % 7 1995 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4,1995 
1:35 P.M. 



san pbawoi^ 

pUBUC UBRART 



265-R 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1995 
1:35 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



3 1223 03273 6457 



11 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

JOHN P. CAFFREY, Secretary 

State Water Resources Control Board 

SENATOR JIM COSTA 

BRYAN E. CARVER, Member 

Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board 

ELAINE W. DONALDSON, Chairperson 
Cal-OSHA Appeals Board 

PAUL V. PRIOLO, Member 
California Community Colleges 

DAVID MERTES, Chancellor 
California Community Colleges 

S. WILLIAM MALKASIAN, Member 
State Board of Education 

JAMES T. RUDE, Member 
Industrial Welfare Commission 

WILLIE WASHINGTON 

California Manufacturers Association 



75 SFpf 83 n J FPL ' EC0N ° » 
/=■ SFPL 06/06/03 o 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued^ 

2 JAMES 0. ABRAMS, Executive Vice President 
California Hotel and Motel Association 

3 California Lodging Industry Association 

4 THOMAS R. LUEVANO 
California Association of Hospital and Health Systems 

5 Health Care Human Resource Management Association of 
California 

V 

JULIANNE BROYLES 

7 California Chamber of Commerce 

8 ROY GABRIEL 
California Farm Bureau Federation 

: 

PAUL MAHAN 

10 California Trucking Association 

11 DEBBY BOUCHER 
California Nurses Association 

12 

JACK HENNING 

13 California Labor Federation 

14 ALLEN DAVENPORT 
Service Employees International Union 

TOM RANKIN 

16 California Labor Federation 

17 GERTI B. THOMAS, Member 
State Board of Education 

18 

19 
20 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

JOHN P. CAFFREY, Member 

State Water Resources Control Board 1 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR JIM COSTA 1 

Background and Experience 2 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Sufficiency of Protections in New 

Bay-Delta Agreement 5 

Completion of Comprehensive Groundwater 

Strategy Plan 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Need for Greater State Role in Groundwater 

Strategies 7 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Worst Water Problems in California 8 

Position on Construction of a Water Delivery 

Project from Northern to Southern California ... 10 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Types of Transfer Facilities Envisioned 11 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Board's Decision to Not Enforce Regulations ... 12 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Board's Funding Sources 15 

Work Backlogs on Regulatory Permitting 17 

Areas for Greater Uniformity in Regulation .... 18 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Water Quality Standards for Bay 19 



V 



INDEX f Continued ^ 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Warnings about Quality Standards in Bay 21 

Efforts to Eliminate Heavy Metal Discharges 

into the Bay 22 

Prospects for Restoring Lost General Fund 

Monies 23 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Need for Fairness in Water Quality Enforcement 

with Respect to Heavy Metal Discharges 24 

Motion to Confirm 24 

Committee Action 25 

BRYAN E. CARVER, Member 

Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board 25 

Background and Experience 25 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Membership of Union Lodge 26 

Decision on Capri Manufacturing regarding 

Use of Carcinogen 27 

Maximum Penalties 29 

Reason for Reduction of Penalties 29 

Witness in Support: 

ELAINE W. DONALDSON, Chair 

Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board 30 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Disputes Involving Multiple Contractors on 

Work Sites 31 

Motion to Confirm 32 

Committee Action 32 



VI 



INDEX ( Continued) 

PAUL V. PRIOLO, Member 

Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 33 

Background and Experience 33 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Board's Frustration with Local Control and 

Tendancy to Micro Manage Chancellor's Office ... 34 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Student Fees 35 

Possibility of Rolling Back Fees 37 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Percentage of Students that Left System Due 

Solely to Fee Increases 40 

Response by DAVID MERTES, Chancellor 

California Community Colleges 40 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Costs in Addition to Fees 41 

Response by CHANCELLOR MERTES 42 

Motion to Confirm 43 

Committee Action 43 

S. WILLIAM MALKASIAN, Member 

State Board of Education 44 

Background and Experience 44 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Relationship between State Board and 

State Superintendent 46 

Main Problem with California's Educational 

System 46 

Percentage of Great Teachers 47 



Vll 

INDEX (Continued^ 

Bilingual Education 48 

Deputy Superintendents 50 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Election of State Superintendent vs . Appointment 

of State Board Members 51 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER 51 

Need for More Local Control 53 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER of Committee Intent 

to Hold State Board of Education Confirmations over 

Until Monday, January 9, 1995 55 

JAMES T. RUDE, Member 

Industrial Welfare Commission 56 

Witnesses in Support: 

WILLIE WASHINGTON 

California Manufacturers Association 57 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Numbers on Appearances before 

Commission relative to Petitions 58 

Outcome of Petitions 59 

Inability of Manufacturing Corporations 
to Effectively Use 12-hour Shifts due to 
Restrictions 60 

Necessity for Employee Vote 60 

Response by MR. RUDE regarding 

Constraints 61 

Initial CMA Suit Against IWC 62 

Possibility of Being Unduly Aggressive ... 64 

JIM ABRAMS, Executive Vice President 

California Hotel and Motel Association 

California Lodging Industry Association 65 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Competitive Disadvantages 66 



V1X1 



INDEX (Continued) 

Displeasure with Some Restrictions on 

12-hour Shift Regulations 68 

TOM LUEVANO 

California Association of Hospitals and 

Health Systems; Health Care Human Resource Management 

Association of California 69 

JULIE BROYLES 

California Chamber of Commerce . 70 

ROY GABRIEL 

California Farm Bureau Federation 71 

PAUL MAHAN 

California Trucking Association 71 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

DEBBY BOUCHER 

California Nurses Association 72 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Formulation of Oppose Position 73 

JACK HENNING 

California Labor Federation 74 

ALLEN DAVENPORT 

Service Employees International Union 7 6 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Resistance to Reviewing Mininum Wage 

Every Two Years 77 

Opinion on Fairness of Not Increasing 

Minimum Wage Since 1988 78 

Connection between California ' s Economic 

Development and Minimum Wage 7 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

States with Higher Minimum Wages than 

California 80 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Influence of Inflation on Minimum Wage 80 



IX 



INDEX ( Continued ) 

Opinion on Appropriateness of Current 

Level of Minimum Wage 82 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Quantification of Variables Considered when 

Reviewing Minimum Wage 82 

Industries Most Dependent on Minimum Wage 

Work Forces 83 

Prevalence of Minimum Wage in Health Care Area . . 85 

Extent of Full Review 85 

Lack of Full Commission 86 

Number of Businesses with 12-hour Shifts 88 

Speculation on Next Minimum Wage Review 

and Philosophical Approach 90 

Witness in Opposition: 

TOM RANKIN 

California Labor Federation 91 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Last Full Review 91 

Response by MR. RUDE 91 

Number of Petitions Seeking Review of 

Minimum Wage 92 

Votes by Mr. Novey on Commission 92 

Statement of Committee Intent by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER to 

Hold Appointment Over until January 9 93 

GERTI B. THOMAS, Member 

State Board of Education 93 

Background and Experience 94 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Ability of Board to Work with New 

State Superintendent 95 



X 

INDEX (Continued^ 

Greatest Challenges to Education in California . . 96 

Stockton Dispute 97 

Current Approach to Bilingual Education 98 

Opinion on Privatizing or Voucher Education ... 99 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

State Board's Resolution against Prop. 174 .... 99 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER of Committee's Intent 
to Hold State Board of Education Confirmations over 
until Monday, January 9, 1995 100 

Termination of Proceedings 100 

Certificate of Reporter . 101 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
--O0O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Rules Committee will come to 
order . 

Happy New Year, colleagues, staff and witnesses, 
Members, and so forth. We're happy to be back, I guess, 
especially happy to be functioning. 

Mr. Caffrey,if you want to join us at the front 
table, we'll take up your confirmation first, and perhaps begin 
with a statement from Senator Costa. 

SENATOR COSTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Rules Committee. 

Very briefly, I'd like to add my support for the 
renomination and the confirmation, I guess of John Caffrey, who 
serves on the State Water Resources Control Board. 

I've worked with Mr. Caffrey over the years. While 
we obviously have not agreed on every single issue that we have 
dealt with, I have found him to be fair. I have found him to be 
reasonable, and very sincere in his efforts in attempting to try 
to deal with California's many difficult water problems that we 
face, both short-term as well as long-term. 

And I think most recently, the evidence of what 
appears to be an agreement between the state and federal 
government on the most recent fed negotiations as a result of 
Secretary Babbit and Governor Wilson's agreement on December 
15th, the State Water Resources Control Board was a very 
significant participant in that effort. And as such, would like 
to see, I think, taking that good news and building on that in 



the next upcoming years as the new Chairman of the Ag. and Water 
Committee, following the big shoes that Senator Ayala has left, 
but with his help and support, and other Members of the Senate, 
we think we can build on that progress, and I think John Caffrey 
will serve an important role in providing continuity if he is 
confirmed as the Governor's renominated him. 

I'd just like to add my support. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much, Senator 
Costa. 

Sir, do you want to start? I don't know if you have 
any opening comment . 

MR. CAFFREY: Certainly, if you'd like me to, 
Senator, I ' d be happy to do that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That would be an appropriate place 
to start, if you wish. 

MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, for the record, I am John 
Caffrey, and I am honored to b here and I thank you for this 
opportunity. 

I'm a 28-year state employee. I'm currently serving 
my fifth year as a member of the State Water Resources Control 
Board. It is coming to the conclusion of the first year of my 
second term. I am also serving as Chair. I've been in that 
capacity for two years. 

Prior to my five years on this Board, I served four 
years in the Department of Water Resources as Deputy Director 
and then Chief Deputy, where I had responsibilities for dam 
safety, water conservation and water quality. 



you may have of me. And again, I'm very grateful for this 
opportunity. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sure there will be a number of 
questions . 

I might just preliminarily indicate that you have a 
career as a public servant that's very impressive. 

MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And often politicians say nasty 
things about bureaucrats, or as one of my close friends would 
say, burro-crats, but you're one that illustrates how those 
types of career choices are personally satisfying as well as to 
the public good. 

MR. CAFFREY: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your work in water policy as a 
consensus builder is especially impressive. It's very easy for 
things to break down and nothing to happen. And I guess maybe 
that's the easy way to go, but we have problems, and we have 
great needs in terms of supply, distribution, pricing, 
conservation, transfers, and rights and quality, and the fact 
that you're able to enjoy the respect of virtually every serious 
participant and stakeholder in the policy area for your 
conscientiousness and fairness is quite impressive. 

MR. CAFFREY: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know there are questions, as 
Senator Costa had mentioned. I know that each one of us would 
probably disagree amongst ourselves, and so we'll have something 
to disagree about in this respect. 

Let me call on Senator Ayala, Mr. Water. Do you want 



to start? 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Caffrey, the newly agreed upon 
Bay-Delta agreement that supposedly is the first step in many 
steps to be taken in terms of California water, many people have 
criticized that agreement as not being enough, sufficiently 
enough, to protect the salmon and the steelhead. 

What is your position on that agreement that was just 
created here about month ago? 

MR. CAFFREY: Well, although the Board hasn't voted 
on it yet, Senator, I'll offer this personal opinion. 

I'm very hopeful that the plan does offer sufficient 
protections for the species that are listed as endangered, such 
as the delta smelt and the winter run salmon. 

One of the things that is built into the agreement is 
that it will be reviewed in three years and reconstituted if 
need be. In addition to that, we will be opening our water 
rights proceeding probably no later than June of this year, 
after we go through the approval of the plan and the proper 
notification for the scoping of the water rights, and begin the 
allocation of the water costs of that plan. 

So, it is an ongoing process, and we will be staying 
with it forever more, so to speak, to make sure that the 
resources are protected and all the beneficial uses get the 
supplies of water that they need. 

SENATOR AYALA: As you indicated, it's only a three- 
year proposal, and you're going to be able to review it at that 
point. 

So, you don't agree with those that criticize it for 



8 

the perfect world that the local governments could act 
responsibly enough to take care of their local resources, but 
while that, at this point in time, remains the philosophy of the 
Water Board, we are not going to be reticent to step in and 
handle the matter if there is not another alternative. 
Hopefully, we will do that in enough time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: To wheel it around in response to 
Senator Ayala, I think what you've suggested is, there's 
probably not a current role, other than that which you would see 
in an adjudicatory function, for State Board or State 
Legislature. 

MR. CAFFREY: Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say 
that, Senator Ayala and Senator Lockyer. We are looking at the 
matter. 

One of our new Board members who you recently 
confirmed, John Brown, is very knowledgeable in the area of 
groundwater. And I have asked him or assigned him to monitor 
the situation, to work with the local farm community, to see if 
there is some way to do this differently, if need be. And 
again, in a consensus building mode, hoping that if those 
parties, those diverse parties, feel that this is the way to go, 
they could certainly build on the legislation that Senator Costa 
is the author of. 

So, our minds are somewhat open on that, but our 
basic philosophy is still that the locals should be allowed to 
control their groundwater if that process can work responsibly. 

SENATOR AYALA: Where in California do we now 
currently have the worst water quality problem? 



10 

staff modeled those, we were surprised that the effects were 
even better than we thought they might be on some of the 
species. So, we're very hopeful about that and will continue to 
work on it. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have one more question, and you 
don't have to answer it if you don't want to. 

What is your position on construction of a water 
delivery project from Northern to Southern California? And you 
don't have to answer if you don't want to. 

MR. CAFFREY: I'll accept, with the caveat that I 
made earlier, Senator, about my role as eventually perhaps 
having to be involved in the decision process on water rights on 
facilities . 

Are you speaking of a particular facility? 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm thinking of any and all. 

MR. CAFFREY: The general concept of moving water to 
Southern California? 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes. 

MR. CAFFREY: I think it's something that we 
absolutely have to do. 

SENATOR AYALA: It's authorized by the Burns-Porter 
Act. It's just a matter of deciding which of the transfer 
facilities to construct. 

MR. CAFFREY: That's right. We have 75 percent of 
our precipitation happening in the northern part of California, 
and at least that much percentage of our population requiring 
water to the south of the Tehachapis . 

I very firmly believe that there are very sensitive 



11 

and capable, possible, ways of conveying water that's done in a 
way that's sensitive to the environment. And I think, frankly, 
that we're entering a new era of consensus building. 

One of the things that I've — one of the major 
changes, gentlemen, that I've noticed in the last year and a 
half, I would say, among all the parties that are concerned 
about water supply and water quality, is the need for a reliable 
water supply. And so, this coming together is a result, I 
think, of people looking for that reliability. And I think we 
are starting to have some success in the consensus approach of 
developing reliable supplies. 

SENATOR AYALA: You handled that pretty good. Thank 
you. 

I don ' t have any more questions . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I won't let you off quite as 
easily on that particular issue. 

I would be interested in your general thoughts just 
about concepts of transfer. What kind of facilities or what 
sort of system would be capable of moving substantial volumes 
with minimal environmental hazard? 

MR. CAFFREY: I personally think, Senator, that it's 
possible to build large facilities, dare I say it, I'll mention 
a facility that is of renewed interest at the national level and 
at the local level: the Auburn Dam. 

While I can't take a position on that, and it's a 
question of economics in large part, I think that any large 
facility like that can be sited somewhere that is 
environmentally sensitive, and there can be mitigations that can 



12 

work. And the storage, the waters that are stored in these 
facilities, can be dedicated in such a way as to operate the 
facility that is beneficial to the environment as well as to the 
other beneficial uses. 

I think an example of that is something that I'm very 
proud of that our Board participated in. Our Board granted 
water rights this year to Las Vaqueros Reservoir, which is in 
the Delta on Kellogg Creek. And it was supported by the 
Department of Fish and Game and the environmental community. 
It's a 100,000 acre foot reservoir that allows the capturing and 
storing of fresher water at certain times of heavy flows, and so 
that it can be used for human consumptive needs and freshening 
of the Delta later in the year. 

So, there are ways of building facilities and 
managing the system so that it is beneficial to the environment 
and beneficial to human needs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A win-win approach. 

MR. CAFFREY: It's expensive, but it can be done. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Members? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: On the salinity that was mentioned, 
there was a question regarding the Board's decision in '93 to no 
longer enforce regulations that applied, federal and state, 
which I don't understand. Can you comment on that? 

MR. CAFFREY: I'm not sure I'm familiar with that, 
unless it's the — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think this is the old 1635. 

MR. CAFFREY: Oh, yes. Decision 1630 was an 
emergency water rights decision which attempted to deal with the 



13 

problems of the Delta during the drought. 

Before the -- the Board proposed that as a draft 
water rights decision. Before the Board could adopt it, the 
drought ended. 

The federal government literally overreached the 
requirements of that plan through their invoking of the 
Endangered Species Act for certain species. So, the Board 
chose, at the request of Governor Wilson and Members of the 
Legislature as well, not to adopt that plan, but to move more to 
this consensus building approach. We now have — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Pardon me, Mr. Caffrey. 

Just so the record is straight, it was 1485. 

MR. CAFFREY: Oh, I'm sorry. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which was refused enforcement. 

MR. CAFFREY: I'm sorry. 

There as a — you must be referring, then, to the 
number of days of violation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

MR. CAFFREY: Yes, I am aware of that situation. 

SENATOR PETRIS: There were 289 in '92. 

MR. CAFFREY: Yes. 

At the risk of using an analogy, because I don't mean 
to diminish the importance of those violations, but the Board 
did choose not to penalize the water projects for those 
violations . 

The analogy I would use is that these were marginal 
violations in terms of the amount of water and the amount of 
salinity that occurred. And we had testimony from the 



14 

Department of Fish and Game at one point when we held hearings 
on these that they were — they felt that there was no harm to 
any known — any of the known species. 

The approach that we took in not penalizing the water 
projects was that they were operating in a very difficult time 
of the drought, and trying to provide water to — for human 
consumptive needs. We were not able, in the evidentiary record, 
to find any evidence of any harm to the environment, even though 
there were 289 violations. 

Again, I cite an analogy which I didn't use, but I 
guess the best way to put it is, it was like going 57 miles an 
hour in a 55 zone. Now, that's not lawful, I realize. But they 
weren't the kinds of violations that were doing harm that we 
could find. So, we decided at that point, because of the 
drought conditions, to not penalize the Department at that 
point . 

SENATOR PETRIS: For what period of time? 

MR. CAFFREY: That was just for that group of 
instances, so that was just at that one time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's not an ongoing — 

MR. CAFFREY: Oh, no, no. That's not an ongoing at 
all. In fact, we've had some memorandums of understanding with 
the Department now, and we have a whole new process. When they 
begin to approach any time period where these violations may 
start to occur, or even getting close, they notify us right 
away, and we try to assist them in any way that we can. 

It's very difficult, sometimes, to ramp these flows 
up and down when you're way up the tributary, managing a dam, 



15 

and the effects of them is, you know, 50 or 100 miles 
downstream. 

But we do have a new and better way of managing this 
now because of the cooperation of the Department of Water 
Resources . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do you do it with computers? 

MR. CAFFREY: I'm kind of — at home and at work. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Some of our computers haven't been 
working too well. That's why I asked you that. 

MR. CAFFREY: Sometimes mine at home and at work 
doesn't work too well, either. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I have a 12 -year old. 

MR. CAFFREY: I have a 13-year old. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me talk with you for a moment 
just about kind of structural matters: the funding of the 
Board; the relationship of the regional boards to the State 
Board; the lack of uniformity of basic regulatory structure 
because of the nine-board configuration. 

Let's start with funding. I think you've dropped 
from over half of the Board funding being general fund, to now 
down in the 10 percent neighborhood. 

MR. CAFFREY: It's gone — we've lost more than 30 
percent of our general fund because of the budget constraints; 
that's correct, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Some have suggested that when the 
fee devices were instituted as a way to make up, to back-fill 
for lost revenue, that it tends to kind of Balcanize your 
program. That is, the people that pay a fee feel like, "Well, 



17 

70 different dedicated fund sources right now, Senator Lockyer. 
And we are very interested in designing something that would be 
a little less cumbersome, a little more responsive to both the 
regulatory needs and the economic needs of the public. 

Certainly with your help, we might be able to bring 
something forward in the near future that would be constructive 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe we'll all learn this in a 
week, but have you had any success in persuading Finance that 
you ought to have greater reliance on general fund, rather than 
all the special levies? 

MR. CAFFREY: At the risk of — I don't want to 
violate executive privilege of the budget, but I think our 
budget will be adequate for the moment, but I think, hopefully, 
the future will allow us to take another look at the structure 
as we've just discussed, and perhaps get a little bit more 
efficient ways of funding our programs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have work backlogs on 
regulatory permitting or anything? 

MR. CAFFREY: We do have, yes; we do have some. 

We've been working with Cal-EPA and their staff to 
try and prioritize these backlogs . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long are they? 

MR. CAFFREY: I apologize, Senator. I don't know 
right off the top. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ball park? 

MR. CAFFREY: Well, the backlogs that we do have are 
not in the more sensitive areas. The NPDES permits that are 
part of the Clean Water Act, we're required to renew every five 



18 

years, so we're keeping on top of those. 

So, anything that's of high priority, that is, where 
there is significant risk of pollution, we are dealing with 
those immediately. I don't believe we have a backlog in those 
at all. 

There's some lesser areas where we know that, just by 
normal monitoring and the work of our regional boards, that we 
need to renew those permits just because it's the right thing to 
do, but that there is no problem per se there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The variety of local regulation, 
because of the regional nature of quality control, are there any 
areas where you would wish for greater uniformity? 

MR. CAFFREY: I think so, Senator. In fact, we have 
just, as a part of the external program review that I mentioned, 
we've proposed to the Department of Personnel Administration, 
working with Cal-EPA, that we establish an office of statewide 
consistency within the Board. 

Now, the way I define consistency is, the same 
treatment for the same kind of situation. And we think there 
are some opportunities there to give the kind of policy guidance 
to the regional boards — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's also the definition of 
justice. 

MR. CAFFREY: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Similar treatment in similar 
circumstances . 

MR. CAFFREY: Absolutely, Senator. 

And so, that's what we are striving for, and I think 



19 

we have some areas where we will be able to make it easier for 
people who are trying to get permits to understand what can be 
expected, no matter what regional board they're appearing 
before. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Control Board has been meeting 
throughout the state, trying to come up with some standards, 
some water quality standards, for the Bay. 

When should we expect that those standards will be 
made public? And if you do such standards, where will the water 
come from to meet those standards? 

MR. CAFFREY: I think standards for the Bay has — 
the surrogate for that would be outflow. And I think that that 
is going to be a part of this ongoing process with the Bay-Delta 
process . 

Outflow and measurements of increased outflow are 
going to be a part of that plan. And I would think that out of 
that, we would be able to standardize the impact that it's 
having on the Bay. 

So, I see it, Senator, always as one very significant 
package. They're all inextricably linked. And to deal with one 
separately is probably not the way to go . 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you expect the standards to be set 
in the near future? 

MR. CAFFREY: Well, the water rights process that 
we're going to go through, and the water quality process, 
because of the requirements and the due process aspect of the 
adjudicatory proceeding, it could take as many as three years. 



21 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. CAFFREY: — although it's an area that hasn't 
been discussed as much in the last two or three years as it was 
prior to that, there is more concentration now on the Delta 
estuary itself and the standards there. 

I think of standards for the Bay in terms of outflow 
measurement . And I think the term that was used a few years ago 
was a flushing of the Bay. 

But I think that whenever you set proper flow 
standards, and the tributaries that are most important to the 
Delta, like the San Joaquin and the Sacramento, that you have an 
impact. And when you manage the pumping in the Delta or from 
the Delta properly, you have an impact on the Bay that is very 
beneficial. So, I think they all go together. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'll take the Chairman's admonition, 
and I won't pursue it any further. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, no. That's okay. I don't 
mind. 

SENATOR PETRIS: On that point of standards for the 
Bay, we were also talking about quality standards, I assume. 

MR. CAFFREY: That's absolutely correct. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We've had a lot of warnings in the 
last two months . 

MR. CAFFREY: I'm very aware of that. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Kind of a strange warning. It says 
the Bay has very serious pollution problems, so if you catch 
fish in the Bay, don't eat it more than twice a month. 

I don't know how you measure that. Maybe eat half 



22 

the fish, throw the other half out. 

MR. CAFFREY: That, unfortunately, Senator, is the 
result of past practices in discharge. We know a lot more now. 

The standards that we now have, the water quality- 
standards that dischargers in the Bay are held to, do not result 
in that kind of what's called biocumulation in the fish. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That'll take a while, though, to 
flush out or clean out; won't it? 

MR. CAFFREY: That's right. The half life of these 
heavy metals, and some of these biphenals that are being found 
in certain species of fish is very long. So, the way you deal 
with that is to make sure through your monitoring that people 
are meeting the current standards of discharge and also by 
proper notification; you know, public health notifications to 
people who would be inclined to eat the fish. 

So, it's an unfortunate situation, but over time it 
will dissipate. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How much time? 

MR. CAFFREY: I'm a little bit of a scientist, but 
I'm not that much of a half life measurer that I can tell you 
how much time. 

It depends on which of the heavy metals you're 
talking about and which species of fish, but it could take 
years, several years. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are efforts being made to eliminate 
the heavy metal discharge? 

MR. CAFFREY: Absolutely. We have — 

SENATOR PETRIS: A lot of that's in the South Bay, I 



23 

understand. 

MR. CAFFREY: That's right. And the State Water 
Board developed and adopted something called the Pollution 
Policy, Statewide Pollution Policy document, which is applied 
specifically to the Bay and the estuary. And the regional 
boards are required to follow those standards when they set 
water quality standards, and they have been doing that. 

The key in all this goes back to what Senator Lockyer 
was talking about, and developing a more efficient funding 
structure for the Board so that we make sure that we have 
sufficient monitoring we need to see that the current discharges 
are meeting the current standards . 

SENATOR PETRIS: You mentioned a 30 percent loss of 
the general fund part — 

MR. CAFFREY: That's right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: — of your money is now gone. 

What are the prospects for restoring as much of that 
as possible this coming year and next? 

MR. CAFFREY: I guess I'd have to defer to the 
Department of Finance on that question, although we are doing 
other things . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Are you banging on their door? 

MR. CAFFREY: We are, yes, sir. But we're also doing 
other things in terms of becoming more internally efficient in 
our own organization and examining our fee structure, as Senator 
Lockyer was suggesting also to be more efficient so that, 
hopefully, we won't have to be that much of a drain on the 
general fund. 



24 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As someone who represents a bit of 
the Silicon Valley, I think it's necessary to interject the hope 
that fairness in water quality enforcement with respect to the 
heavy metals would not simply burden the manufacturing 
discharges, which are a very, very small piece of the puzzle, 
unduly compared to all of the stuff coming out of the old copper 
mines running down the Mokelumne, and so on, that really is a 
greater source of this problem. Tricky and difficult to work 
out, but I assume you'll be fair. 

MR. CAFFREY: We certainly will, Senator, and we are 
very aware of that problem. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, the half life of the 
attention span in this Committee is about 22 minutes, and I note 
that there are some, Gordon Cologne, a long list of letters, who 
support you. There may be others in the room. 

I would like to, perhaps, exercise some of the 
Chair's prerogative, who's looking at a long agenda, to just ask 
for a motion on the subject, if the Committee is prepared to 
vote on this matter. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Beverly has made the 
appropriate motion. 

Any further discussion or questions? 

Let's call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 



25 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. CAFFREY: Thank you very much, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck to you. 

Mr. Carver is our next appointee. Mr. Carver, did 
you want to begin by any discussion at all of why you like this 
job? 

MR. CARVER: I love the job. I've been at the job 
since January of 1993. I really do enjoy it. It's like doing 
arbitration cases, basically, that I used to do when I was 
president of the Machinists' Union. 

And I have, I think, probably a longer statement than 
you folks want to hear, but if you want to, I can go ahead and 
read it and eliminate a couple of the paragraphs . 

But at any rate, the job is a good job. I'm in the 
learning process now. We have a really, really good Board. The 
Chairman of our Board is fantastic . It ' s probably one of the 
better organized boards in the whole state government. It runs 
perfectly, believe me. And I'm just proud to be a part of it. 

Let me give you my background a little bit, if I may. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Farmworker way back. 

MR. CARVER: Well, that's interesting. I kind of 



26 

like this. This is kind of relaxing. 

I was kind of concerned about coming before the 
Committee because I didn't know how it was going to be, it being 
the first time. 

Yeah, as a farmworker, you know, when I was growing 
up as a child — I have three brothers and two sisters — we 
used to -- our parents used to take us out of school to pull 
broom corn, pick cotton, work in the wheat fields, and do other 
jobs. And for the ladies here, I apologize, but even slopping 
hogs, if you know what that means. So, I'm very attuned to the 
health and safety, and how important it is not only to the 
farmworkers, but the workers of California as a whole. 

I think I'd be a very good choice for the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many members were in your 
lodge when you were at the union? This was Lockheed; wasn't it? 

MR. CARVER: Well, we had Lockheed; we had Webber 
Aircraft; we had Hydraulic Research Techtron. We had about 
9,000 members when I was there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What is it down to today? 

MR. CARVER: Oh, Lord, Senator. It's down to about 
1200. Of course, 1200, it's an aerospace — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The aerospace industry was hit 
real hard. 

MR. CARVER: Yeah, and we really, really took a hit. 

We knew the Cold War was coming to an end, but there 
wasn't much we could do about it. It came too fast. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me defer to Members of the 
Committee first, though I do have a couple of things that I'd 



27 

like to ask about. I'll first ask Members if they had anything 
specific . 

I'd really like you to talk — 

MR. CARVER: Don't give me a hard question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Capri Manufacturing. As I 
understand what happened, and so you may need to correct my 
understanding, the question before your Board was whether use of 
a carcinogen which, if there are violations, the law requires 
them to be characterized as serious violations — 

MR . CARVER : That ' s true . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — and the violations that took 
place weren't the actual substance, but they were related to 
training programs and other things. And the Board decided that 
that wasn't use. 

Was that a unanimous decision? 

MR. CARVER: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have I misstated it? 

MR. CARVER: No. I'm trying to recall the case 
itself. We've had about, since I've been there, over 3,000 
appeal cases . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know when this was. 

MR. CARVER: There were two cases similar to that. I 
think Capri was one, and De Silva was another. I don't want to 
get those mixed up. One of them — and I don't want to mess up. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was De Silva? 

MR. CARVER: The De Silva case was how to define the 
use of a carcinogen. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This seems to be the same idea. 



28 

MR. CARVER: Basically the same, I think. I can't 
really recall Capri, because De Silva came a little after that, 
I believe. 

But in that instance, there was a tank with some gas 
that they used to clean some materials. And it was leaking a 
bit. But the hygienist at the OSHA division decided that that 
gas that was leaking dissipated within six inches from the 
canister. And the two ladies that were filing suit worked — 
one lady worked in an office quite a ways away from that area, 
and the other lady came in intermittently, maybe to have breaks 
and this kind of thing. 

We decided that that was not a use of a carcinogen. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that unanimous? 

MR. CARVER: It was. Every — since I've been there, 
every case has been unanimous. And I might add, if I may, 
Senator — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Every one has been? 

MR. CARVER: Yeah. I might add, we have a heck of a 
debate. We study those cases quite extensively, and I wish I 
could recall the Capri case. I recall the De Silva. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's the same idea. 

MR. CARVER: Same idea, yeah, but it's been 
unanimous. We've had discussions, pretty good discussions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, it may be that the problem 
really is with the statute that we wrote, not the way in which 
you chose to implement it. Use if one of those tricky words. 

MR. CARVER: We totally rely on — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Every one has been unanimous in 



29 

the time you've been there, as you recall? 

MR. CARVER: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Members that wanted to pop 
in here? 

What are the maximum penalties you can levy? 

MR. CARVER: Gee, that's hard. I don't really know. 
We've levied — of course, we don't levy penalties. That comes 
with Cal-OSHA. The only thing we do is look at the appeal 
cases . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You can dismiss it or reduce it. 

MR. CARVER: Yeah, according to the director's 
orders, you know, passed by the Legislature. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But, I mean, you can hear an 
appeal and dismiss the penalty that was levied. 

MR. CARVER: We could, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In fact, at least it looks like a 
lot of that has taken place. 

MR. CARVER: Well, I don't think a lot of it has 
taken place. I think, and I might be a little off, but I think 
about 80 percent of it, or maybe 10 percent of it has taken 
place. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where they reduced or dismiss? 

MR. CARVER: Oh, reduce? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Reduce or dismiss. 

MR. CARVER: Dismiss, maybe, about 10 percent. 
Reduced, probably about 50 percent. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does there seem to be a consistent 
reason for reductions? 



30 

MR. CARVER: Oh, sure. We get certain variances 
because of the number of people working in that facility, like 
five or ten people; they get a reduction. And if they have a 
good IP program, safety program going, then they get a reduction 
for that. And there are a litany of reasons there could be 
reductions, and that was passed by the Legislature and part of 
the director's orders. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Members? 

MS. DONALDSON: Senator, if I may, I'm Chairman of 
the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, did you want to come forward? 

MS. DONALDSON: I would state that Bryan is a very 
good labor member of our Board. We've had a good year, I 
believe, and we've had a lot of appeal, and we've had to attack 
them from very different angles. 

I think I certainly support Bryan in his 
confirmation . 

I would add, and the reason I raised my hand a little 
bit ago is the Capri case was considerably before Bryan's time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He wasn't there at the time? 

MS. DONALDSON: No, he was not there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Same idea, though, I guess? 

MS. DONALDSON: Yes, right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're Ms. Donaldson, correct, for 
the record? 

MS. DONALDSON: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But the same issue? 

MS. DONALDSON: Same issue, right. And there are 



31 

certain things the Division can do to prove whether or not it's 
a use. And often times, the Division simply doesn't prove it, 
and that's something we have to look at from our standpoint. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Carver, one of the more common 
to the building trade work site circumstance than the industrial 
settings, but very often there are multiple employers, subs or 
whatever, all in the same work site. And I guess there is a 
dispute occasionally about someone else's practices caused 
injury to employees of one of the other groups, not their own, 
but to someone. You know, the roofers hurt the plumbers, or 
whatever . 

Have you seen those kinds of disputes come before you 
yet in appeals situations? 

MR. CARVER: Yes, I've seen, I think, two, as I 
recall, or maybe one. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not a real common — 

MR. CARVER: No, not a whole lot. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything wrong with the law there? 
do we need to fix it, or does it seem to be working okay? 

MR. CARVER: Oh, it seems to be working very well. 
Of course, we've only had one or two of them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's hard to say out of a thousand 
or more you've — 

MR. CARVER: Well, about 3,000 or — 

MS. DONALDSON: There were 3400. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: While you've been there. 

MR. CARVER: Since I've been there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 



32 

Other questions, Members? What's the pleasure of the 
Committee? 

Is there opposition or support present? We're 
unaware of any opposition. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Lewis. 
Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

MR. CARVER: I wish to thank the Committee and Nancy 
for her help. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Priolo, why don't you come up for a moment. I 
think it'll be a little quicker, perhaps, than the other three 
remaining. 

Paul Priolo we all know. At least two of us served 
with you together in the Assembly, and others in the Senate 
while you were there, Mr. Priolo. 

Did you want to begin with any opening comment at 



33 

all? 

MR. PRIOLO: Not unless you want me to. 

Well, Senator, I don't mean to be facetious. I was 
pleased when the Governor ' s people selected me to serve on the 
Community College Board. I'm a product of the community 
college; although, in those days it was called junior college, 
San Mateo Junior College. 

My wife, who is an immigrant from Germany, is a 
product of Sac. State where she started out with English as a 
Second Language, and was just another example of a large menu 
that is offered by the community colleges. 

People who are trying to get into university but 
don't have grades for it, like I, was my situation, fortunately 
I was able to improve my grades and get to the University of 
California. And my wife, with her language barriers that she 
had encountered when she moved here, and of course, it's been 
expanded tremendously, and the services that are provided by the 
community colleges. 

So, it's a group with which one should be proud to be 
associated with. 

Certainly, the Members of the Legislature who have 
such influence over the community college system should be very 
proud of the system that they've created. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Priolo, one of the comments 
you sometimes hear is, it's a little bit like the Water Board 
that we were talking about a while ago, is the sort of local 
control in policies so significant and such a historical 
practice of deferring to local, in this instance, community 



34 

college districts, that it could occasionally frustrate your 
efforts as the statewide body to effectuate policy changes for 
the whole state. 

I'd like you to comment on two things. One is, how 
does that feel as a person who's been in this position, and do 
you have any thoughts about how it should evolve? 

And secondly, there is the suggestion made that, 
partly because of that frustration to deal with the locals, that 
maybe you micro manage the Chancellor's Office, where there's 
more direct influence over their operations. 

What comments could you help me with? 

MR. PRIOLO: Your question indicates you have a 
considerable insight to what's going on in the community college 
system. 

Firstly, relating to the local control, I think 
that's good. I mean after all, they're known as community 
colleges, and the local boards do have the control over the 
administration of their colleges. And I think that's right. 
They're there to serve the community, the needs of that 
community, be it the community work force or providing the 
curriculum that is necessary to make the motor move, make it 
run, in that community. 

As far as our ability to influence at the state 
level, I haven't been on the Board very long. I haven't felt 
any frustration in dealing with the local boards. I have felt 
some frustration with the — and I'm not sure frustration's the 
word; maybe just some reaction to the effort to micro manage the 
Chancellor's Office. 



35 

I happen to think we have a fine Chancellor. I'm not 
just saying that because he's sitting behind, because I don't 
gain anything by having said that. He does an outstanding job. 

I've always believed that you don't micro manage from 
a governing body. You allow people to do their job. And if 
they don't do it correctly, you move in and you do something 
about it, and keep an eye on what's going on. 

That ' s the way I would handle it were I the person to 
make the decision. 

But it seems like it's not too important function of 
a 50 -member Board if they don't have anything better to do, and 
don't have, really a lot more to do. And the Legislature has 
not given that Board much authority. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What should we do about that? 

MR. PRIOLO: Based on my limited experience thus far 
on the Board, I don't think you should do anything about it. I 
think anything to further strengthen the local boards is 
appropriate . 

I think it ' s the nature of the appointments of 
whichever governor as to how a board is going to behave. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions from Members? Senator 
Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Some of us have been concerned about 
the real squeeze on the students in the form of fees. 

You know, when the JC system started, there weren't 
any fees . 

MR. PRIOLO: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And it really became the model of 



36 

the nation. And at the same time, it attracted very good 
teachers and professors, and so forth. 

In the past two or three years, we've had a beginning 
of fees, where we had the $50 minimum in prior years. Now we're 
going at $13 a unit. And we've seen the largest drop in 
enrollment of any system in the country mostly as a result of 
that. There are other reasons, too. 

Has there been concern expressed on the Board about 
turning that around, particularly in its communications with the 
Governor? 

MR. PRIOLO: There's been considerable expression. I 
don't know anyone on the Board that has expressed any interest 
in raising the fees, or any support for any proposals to raise 
the fees . 

The attitude is that those community colleges are 
supposed to be there to serve anyone and everyone in the state 
who desires to attend. We don't have any limit on who may 
attend, but the thing that does limit it, of course, can be the 
fees, practically speaking. 

There is effort afoot to expand the role of 
corporations to pay for their — pay for curriculum for its 
students. Very often, they are the benefactors of the system by 
having their employees participate in the system or to draw from 
the system, and that perhaps they can share a greater load. And 
I think they ' re receptive to that . 

That isn't anything that, quite frankly, originated 
with the Board. I think it's originated with businesses 
themselves. I think they would find it cheaper than having to 



37 

do what the phone company does, train their people when their 
hire them because they've come out of a school system that 
hasn't provided sufficient education to go out and do the job. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm wondering. There's a lot of 
talk now about the economy is starting to improve, and certain 
policies that are being recommended by the Governor based on 
prediction of an improved economy; we can afford things. 

I'm wondering if there's anybody among your group 
monitoring that in the hope of not only resisting more fee 
increases, but rolling them back? 

MR. PRIOLO: You know, we don't set the fees. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I know, but I mean in terms of 
recommendation . 

MR. PRIOLO: Yes, well — 

SENATOR PETRIS: If the recommendation is made to us, 
it would have a lot of weight, I would think. 

MR. PRIOLO: Practically speaking, I suspect if the 
Governor were to propose a number, he has 15 appointees on the 
Board that he put there, I suspect there's going to be some 
votes of support for him. 

Do I sense any feeling among the members of the Board 
that they are supportive of the concept? No, absent of a 
request from the Governor, I suspect that there would be no 
support for it . 

SENATOR PETRIS: For what? 

MR. PRIOLO: For an increase. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What about a reduction? 

MR. PRIOLO: That's up to you. Yes, the answer is 



38 

yes, yes, yes. We would be delighted with a reduction, but 
that's a decision that would have to be made here. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You know, I've asked this question 
of Cal . State Board members, too, and unfortunately I get the 
same answer: it's up to you. Which is okay, I suppose, since 
we do have the ultimate policy making responsibility, but some 
of us like to look to the Board members themselves who are in 
touch with the system a lot more than we are and more in a 
hands-on policy. 

It would be helpful to us if, based on what you see 
there, and your experience, and your interaction with the other 
members and community, that you could recommend things to us. 
It doesn't mean that we necessarily would follow every single 
time, but I personally would find it very helpful. 

To that extent, I'm wondering whether, because of the 
outcries, and because of this huge drop in enrollment — I think 
it was 155,000 students — that there would be some concern 
among the members to initiate some kind of activity by 
recommendation only. I know you don't have the decision, but if 
you recommended to the Governor and to us that we do this or 
that, I think you'd find we'd be paying very close attention to 
it. 

So, I would like to urge you to see, if you agree 
that we ought to try to reduce those fees as soon as we can, as 
soon as the economy and our resources permit it, that perhaps 
the first initiative coming out of the Board itself would make 
it easier for us to do it. 

MR. PRIOLO: Yes, sir, I agree. 



39 

SENATOR PETRIS: I guess it has to go on the role of 
the Board. I think too many members view it at a distance from 
us . 

And I think an important part of the role of a board 
is to kind of advise us and recommend to us . And even when we 
have legislation that you don't like, some of the members make 
their voices heard. They say, "We don't like what you're 
doing. " 

But we ought to know what you do like, too, and get 
some help from you in generating improved policy. 

MR. PRIOLO: I tried to throw the potato back at you, 
and you threw it back to me . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There are other forums this needs 
to be discussed in, but there's a lot of discussion about tax 
cuts. This is an area in which there was more than a 100 
percent tax increase during the duration of this current 
Governor . 

It just seems to me that increases of that sort ought 
to be rolled back before we cut some of the taxes that have been 
in place for a number of years . 

So, I think we're all in agreement. It's a question 
of who has the ability, will, and power to make the change. 
We're just hoping you'll do your best, as you've done for 20 
years . 

MR. PRIOLO: I promise I will. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Out of the 155,000 decline in 
enrollment over the last couple of years, has the Board 



40 

commissioned any surveys of that pool of former students to 
determine what percentage of them left the system because of the 
fee increases? 

MR. PRIOLO: I'll have to defer that to Chancellor 
Mertes . 

MR. MERTES: The answer is yes. And the major 
population that was hit were people probably entering higher ed 
for the first time, particularly ESLs and in remedial language 
situations in English and mathematics. 

SENATOR LEWIS: What was the percentage that you 
believe left the system or didn't replace exiting students, that 
it might be because of the fee increases? 

MR. MERTES: I'm missing the question? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Of the 155,000 decline in enrollment, 
what percentage of that would you estimate could be attributable 
to the increase in fees? 

MR. MERTES: That one is a difficult one, because 
fees typically, when you talk to students and you question 
students, the fees are part of the physical package of books, 
transportation. Our population is 27 years of age. Many of 
them have child care problems, and they talk about the physical 
package. Any part of that that starts to go up, and fees is the 
part that has gone up, is that bit that just teeters, and they 
back away. 

It's — the fee as a stand-alone, you can't simply 
measure because many of our students are very, very low income 
students. They're just on the edge. Child care is very real 
for them. Transportation is very real for them. They're in low 



41 

paying jobs, often times part-time jobs. A change of job 
schedule will cause them to drop out simply because they've got 
to have that money to survive. 

We have not found an effective way of isolating the 
fees alone and say that's the direct cause and effect. We can 
certainly show that every time the fees have gone up, there has 
been a major drop in the student population. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is possibly one of the answers, and I 
don't know if you tested this in your studies or surveys, that 
for the last couple of years, we had domestic out-migration out 
of the state? And certainly, one of the ages groups that would 
be most likely to utilize the community colleges would be a very 
big part of that equation. 

MR. MERTES: I don't believe that's a significant 
factor for the decline for our student population. 

Our population tends to be centered right in the 
district that's served. They don't move around very much, 
around the state. They stay in that geographical area. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Someone was leaving the State of 
California, then. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: As the fees went up from $6 to $13 in 
the last, what, three or four years, and we're told that for 
every dollar that you raise the fees, you lose 100,000 students, 
has that affected California's colleges in a way that it should? 
And who decides, is it the Legislature or the Board of Regents, 
or the local boards decide the cost of fees. 

And sometimes to that they add a health plan, and 



42 

parking, and all this other stuff besides the fee. The students 
just can't afford it, some of the students. 

You determines? Is it you folks determine what the 
college will — 

MR. PRIOLO: In the final analysis, it's the 
Governor's signature on the budget. 

SENATOR AYALA: It's in the budget bill. 

MR. PRIOLO: But as I think Senator Petris is saying, 
a lot of people are involved in that decision making process. 
And be it the Legislature, the local boards, the State Board, we 
do actively, as a state board, have a lobbyist who lobbies on 
behalf of legislation here before the Legislature. And I'm not 
aware of his lobbying for increased fees. I don't think it 
would be approved. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do the local boards have the 
authority to add to the $13 per unit? 

MR. PRIOLO: I don't think so, no. 

SENATOR AYALA: It has to be done from whom? 

MR. MERTES: From the Legislature. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Legislature determines what they 
can charge for parking and for health plan? 

MR. MERTES: You have several areas. Health, parking 
are two examples that you authorize the local districts to levy 
a fee up to a certain level. Then the local districts can levy 
a fee or not levy a fee, but you set the maximum. 

SENATOR AYALA: Can they add to that through an 
election of the district electorate? 

MR. MERTES: No. 



43 

SENATOR AYALA: That's it? 

MR. MERTES: That's it. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the pleasure of the 
Committee? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I'll be pleased to move we 
recommend confirmation. 

MR. PRIOLO: And I'm pleased, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present who would 
wish to add either support or opposition? I think we're looking 
at a 5-0 vote here. 

We have a motion before us. Let's call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Priolo, I'm delighted to 
participate in conferring just honors on man who — 

MR. PRIOLO: Thank you, Senator. And if we ever have 
a community college in Malibu, you can be sure that you'll be 
invited down for a weekend. 



44 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

Mr. Malkasian, good afternoon sir. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to start by commenting 
at all on what you're doing on this Board, and so on? 

MR. MALKASIAN: I can make a brief statement, if I 
may. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sure. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Board, my name is Bill Malkasian. If you notice a slight 
brogue, I'm from — originally from Boston; migrated to 
California, Sacramento in particular. 

And I've been in public education for 30-40 years, 
something like that, and I'm still, after I retired in '83. 
I've been a principal of a junior high and a high school here in 
Sacramento, and I'm now the Director of the International 
Academy at Sacramento State University, which is a program with 
the county, Sacramento County, and the University. And we deal 
with high achieving students from the Sacramento area, 
Sacramento and El Dorado Counties, and we deal in economics, 
foreign language of the Asian countries, and economics of those 
countries, and their social structures. 

What am I doing, why do I want to be — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Pardon me, but are they students 
at Sac. State? 

MR. MALKASIAN: No, these are high achieving high 
school students. We take freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors 
and freshmen college students . 



45 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You have some after-school type 
programs? 

MR. MALKASIAN: No, no. This was a summer program, 
eight-week summer program dealing with Chinese, Japanese, 
Korean, Russian and Spanish, advanced Spanish. 

People ask me why do I want to be on the Board after 
serving so long in public education. I was going to bring my 
eight grandkids here, from eight years old down to three, but I 
didn't think you'd appreciate that. A couple of them are from 
your area, Senator Lockyer, and a couple are from Senator 
Petris ' s area. 

And by the way, Senator Petris, Merry Christmas 
coming up. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, thanks. 

MR. MALKASIAN: So, I really am interested and have 
been interested in the education of youngsters in our state, and 
that's why I'm on the Board. And that's just not a statement or 
a quote just to be — sound good. 

I'll field any question that you might have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions from Members? 

MR. MALKASIAN: Oh, by the way also, I've been in 
touch — Ms . Eastin has been in touch with me four or five 
different times, on her car phone, on her phone from her office, 
on her phone from home. And I frankly, I think that Ms. Eastin 
is going to do an excellent job. I think since she's been in 
public education, and understands what people are going through, 
and also being part of the Legislature, I think that's a big 
asset for our program. So, we're really pleased with Ms. 



46 

Eastin. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If we could, could we start there, 
just the structural and institutional arrangement or tension 
between the elected Superintendent and the Board. That's been 
troublesome in past years . 

It does appear that everybody's making an effort to 
be more cooperative. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's your attitude about that 
relationship between the two? 

MR. MALKASIAN: I got you. 

The relationship between the Board and the 
Superintendent, or acting Superintendent, which was Bill Dawson, 
has been excellent. I think, and as I told Ms. Eastin, that the 
Board will cooperate with her 100 percent. I see no problem 
there . 

It's a good Board, and their primary interest is the 
educational process in the State of California. They want to 
see the state get back on track where it used to be years ago. 
We had the best system in the United States , and even today we 
have a pretty good system. It needs a boost. I could use 
another term, but there's ladies present. They need a kick in 
the butt, is what it needs. 

We need some changes to motivate the process. We 
have some outstanding students and outstanding teachers in this 
state, and administrators, but we need to get it moving. Right 
now, it's — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What causes the problem? 



47 

MR. MALKASIAN: I think the problem, and my feeling 
is, that we ought to give local control — we ought to have 
local control . 

What we ought to do is also make the site 
administrators responsible for their schools. And if they can't 
produce, then we find people who can produce. 

You can't give a manager, assign him a task, and not 
let him have the full responsibility of what's happening in that 
particular site. 

And I can verify that because I took over a school. 
And it seemed like my job always was, when there was a problem, 
call in Bill Malkasian. And that happened here in Sacramento; 
that happened in Castlemont High School when there were 
problems . 

So, what I asked the Superintendent to do, I said, 
"Look, I'll take the job providing I have to march to a 
different drummer 'til I get this place back together." I have 
to do my own hiring, or whatever. I will be responsible, 
operate within the policy of the board, naturally. And so, he 
did give me that responsibility. Consequently, we straightened 
out a couple of schools that were in very bad trouble. We had, 
you name it: drugs, guns, the whole myriad. And we were able 
to do that. And when I say "we", with some great teachers, and 
there are some great teachers out there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What percentage? 

MR. MALKASIAN: What percentage do I think? It would 
be a guess. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just your guess. 



48 

MR. MALKASIAN: I would say that 90 percent of the 
teachers out there are great, and that's just a guess. 

In my particular institutions, I had — every one of 
them were excellent teachers. They cared about what they were 
doing. They were interested in the kids. The coaches worked 
hard with youngsters, spending their own money, the whole thing. 

That ' s why it bothers me when I see people 
criticizing teachers. We do have some apples out there that are 
not doing the job, and so we focus in on that. Hopefully, 
that'll change. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It sounded like your first thought 
about how to make the system better, kick it in the fanny, or 
whatever, is more school site — 

MR. MALKASIAN: Control. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — control. Is that your first 
thought about that? 

MR. MALKASIAN: Yes, yes. I believe in that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's currently, I guess, some 
discussion with respect to bilingual education, or ESL, and so 
on. The appropriate role of either local policy versus the 
State Board holding them accountable, isn't this coming up soon? 

MR. MALKASIAN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's going on? 

MR. MALKASIAN: I think that the local people should 
have some leeway on how they ' re going to do this , but I think 
they should be accountable to the State Department of Education, 
and then in turn, the Board function with the State Department 
of Education. 



49 

And we need those types of programs, you know. I 
hear all kinds of problems in the programs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Some school district got beat up 
recently before you. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Yes, Stockton was a good example. 
They don't have people qualified to teach the program. And they 
have a diverse population. It's unbelievable how many different 
types of languages are spoken in certain areas . I think they 
say 129 in the state; 129 different dialects. That's tough to 
find people who can teach those kids . 

But we must find people to teach. It's easy to take 
kindergarten to fourth grade and teach those kids English. But 
what happens to the kids in the upper levels that come in that 
don't speak English at all? They must — they must learn 
history, science, math and so forth. So, we have to find ways 
of teaching those kids, and getting them into the mainstream so 
that they function. 

I'm a product. You know, I'm from Boston. My folks 
were immigrants. We lived in what they called ghettos in those 
days, where the French lived in one area, the Italians lived in 
another, the English lived in another. Of course, the Irish 
lived all over Boston. When I was growing up, it was 90 percent 
Irish, and they used to call me "O'Malkasian" . 

But my father used to tell me, you know, "When you're 
out in the streets playing with your friends, speak English. 
When you're in the house, you speak Armenian." And so, that's 
the policy I followed, and consequently, English was always my 
toughest language in school, and I ended up at Boston Latin High 



50 

School, so you can figure out, you know, what happened. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Jumping back to where we began, 
next week's agenda, or the week after, whenever your next 
meeting is coming up — 

MR. MALKASIAN: Next week. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's an item with respect to 
the Deputy Superintendents, and who they're going to be, or how 
they're going to get filled, or whatever. 

Has that been worked out yet between the Board and 
the new Superintendent? 

MR. MALKASIAN: I don't know if it has or has not, 
but I don't anticipate a problem. 

I think, if I were the Superintendent, I'd want to 
work with people that I wanted as my lieutenants. And I don't 
see a problem, frankly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you think she should be given 
considerable latitude? 

MR. MALKASIAN: I think so. We're not — she's going 
to — those are the lieutenants that she's going to be working. 
She must have confidence in those people and trust. And that's 
— you know, for her to function properly, she needs that 
latitude. And I have no problem. 

I doubt very much if the rest of the Board would be 
in her way on that function at all. I'd probably lobby for her. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: On that point that you raise about 
the relationship between the Superintendent and the members of 
the Board, I think the state does it completely 



51 

counter-productive, as far as I'm concerned. 

At the local level, you elect the board members; they 
in turn select a superintendent that they can work with. And if 
that individual doesn't do the job, they get rid of him. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Here, we select the Superintendent, 
and nominate or put people into Board positions which are 
appointed, appointed positions, to tell the one that's been 
elected by the people, statewide, what it should be. 

I think it ' s not the way it should be . 

MR. MALKASIAN: I don't want to throw the ball back 
into your court, but isn't that where the Legislature comes in, 
to straighten that out? 

SENATOR AYALA: You're correct, but we don't have the 
courage to do it. It's been tried before, and it doesn't go 
very far. The fact that we should have the Superintendent 
elected — 

MR. MALKASIAN: I agree with you. I'm not debating 
that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The only argument I would make, 
and I agree with Senator Ayala, this is sort of an odd way to do 
it, it may be that we elect too many things generally in this 
state, and that's more at the local level than statewide. 

But one argument for the Board format — and I don't 
think we could elect the members of the State School Board; that 
wouldn't make any sense, so I guess you could, theoretically, 
but it ' d be an odd structure — but at least some of the 
diversity of the state is reflected in multi-member rather than 



52 



none person. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, that's the strength of it. 
And as diversity is the, I think, pre-eminent issue of the next 
decade or two, at least your variety helps to reflect the 
variety of the population. 

But it is an odd tension, and it was disfunctional in 
the Honig phase. Without blaming anyone, somehow it went awry, 
and we want to avoid that in the future. 

MR. MALKASIAN: I frankly, you know, people keep 
bringing that subject up, and that there's a tension between the 
Board and the Superintendent . 

Maybe I'm oblivious of what's happening around me, 
but I haven't experienced any tension at all with Dave Dawson. 
In fact, I wrote — they asked me to write a little blurb on his 
retirement thing, and my blurb was: when I first met Dave 
Dawson, I thought he was a bureaucratic stuffed shirt that was 
walking a straight line and didn't understand the program. And 
then I want on, and I said — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were partly right. 

MR. MALKASIAN: But then I said, after I got to know 
him, we became good friends, and I value him as a friend. And 
he is a very knowledgeable person. 

You're right. He is a bureaucratic stuffed shirt. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's obvious you're not. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Well, my kids at school used to say 
about me: what you see is what you get. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 



53 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes, I need to ask a couple more 
questions . 

MR. MALKASIAN: Can I answer your other question 
first, Senator? 

SENATOR AYALA: Sure. 

MR. MALKASIAN: About the elected Superintendent and 
the Board. 

I don ' t know how you resolve that . And I agree with 
Senator Lockyer that, how are you going to elect all these Board 
members? 

SENATOR AYALA: We elect Assembly people and 
Senators . 

MR. MALKASIAN: You can, yes, but you want people 
from different areas, and that's what's the beauty of the Board. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Assembly's from different areas. 

MR. MALKASIAN: You're right, okay. Go ahead. 

SENATOR AYALA: You mentioned earlier that you feel 
that more local control should take place. 

As a former school board member, I agree with that. 
I think that local members should know what the local people 
want. After all, the schools are not owned by anybody except 
the people of that community. Neither the teachers, nor the 
students, nor the superintendent nor the board. They should be 
allowed to do, you know, within the law, what they'll think the 
community needs . 

And if they don't do the right thing, if their 
priorities are not in the right place, the next election time, 
they'll let them know about it. 



54 

So, how can we, from the state level, sort of dictate 
to local school boards? What's good for Eureka may not be good 
enough for San Diego. So, I think we're taking too much away 
from local control. 

The best government is that which is closest to the 
people. 

And I agree that local schools should be given broad 
guidelines, of course. They should leave them alone, and let 
them set their priorities where they think they belong. And 
again, to be redundant, if they don't do it, next election time 
the people let them know. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Well, not too long ago, when you were 
all kids, and I'm a little older than you are, it used to be 
local control . 

And in the California system, you had the best. And 
as Senator Ayala says, when the board didn't function properly, 
they were voted out. And they had control of the budget. They 
had control of bond issues, and the whole thing. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's right. 

MR. MALKASIAN: I can go back to Sputnik. I was in 
the classroom. 

And, you know, I got into education accidentally. I 
was working for Remington Rand Corporation. I met a girl from 
Sacramento and came out here, and I had played a little 
professional baseball. And the superintendent out here happened 
to be a baseball bug. So, my father-in-law introduced me to 
him. He said, "Hey, Malkasian, I have a job for you. Why don't 
you come out here?" 



55 

Well, you know, I'm on my way to Venezuela for Texaco 
Oil, and that kind of thing. And finally, California looked 
pretty good for a guy from the east coast. It happened to be 
winter time when I was here, so it looked much, much better. 

So, I did reconsider and took the job, and that's how 
I got into education. And I have never regretted it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was your position? 

MR. MALKASIAN: I broke in as an outfielder, center 
fielder. And my batting average was such that they thought 
maybe I'd be better off as a catcher; I had a chance. 

Do you want me to go on? 

There was a funny thing known as the curve ball; the 
optical illusion, they called it. I don't know if that's an 
optical illusion or not, but somehow, I'm not hitting that 
thing. 

But I did make a few dollars out of baseball, so it 
was okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present who would 
wish to comment? 

Hearing none, I'll ask if the Committee is ready to 
move along. 

Actually, what I'd like to do with the two State 
Board appointments, if it's okay with the Committee, is to take 
the testimony today and wait a week. Since we're just starting 
up the legislative session, I'm a little worried that maybe 
there are people in the world that didn ' t know we were going to 
do this today, and that we ought to let them contact us if they 
had anything to say. 



56 

I know you have a short time. It's another ten days, 
or something, before the clock runs. So, we'll dispose of the 
matter before that. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Without prejudice. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We won't even probably take 
further testimony unless someone shows up in the next week who 
insists on doing so, in which case we'll let you know. We'll 
just have a pro forma vote at the next hearing. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We meet when, Monday? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, Monday. 

Thank you, sir. 

MR. MALKASIAN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There are a number of witnesses 
present, I guess, with respect to Mr. Rude. Let me ask Mr. Rude 
to come up. 

Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. RUDE: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you wish, sir, to begin with 
any opening statement at all? You don't have to, but it's up to 
you. 

MR. RUDE: I just want to thank Mr. Chairman and the 
Members of the Rules Committee and staff for being here. It's 
an honor to be here . 

The only opening statement is, I've been on the 
Industrial Welfare Commission for ten years, last year serving 
as its Chair. I've enjoyed my tenure there. I've met a lot of 
fine people, both from management and labor side of the aisle, 
and look forward to serving an additional term. 



57 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What I'd like to recommend to 
Members of the Committee is that we take testimony, because I 
think it may help to focus any discussion. There are issues 
mentioned in the packet, and I think you might want to review 
those, but it could be redundant if you don't hear the testimony 
first. 

So, if that's agreeable, I'll ask if there are people 
present who wish to say something in support of the 
confirmation. 

I think there will be opposition also, and so to the 
extent that it's possible to not just sloganize, but to address 
whatever the concerns are, that would be constructive. 

Mr. Washington. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members . 

Willie Washington with the California Manufacturers 
Association. 

I'm here in support of Jim Rude, Commissioner on the 
Industrial Welfare Commission. I've worked with Jim over the 
entire period that he has been one of the Commissioners. We 
share some background, in that I come out of the workplace as a 
human resources person, so we have that in common as well, and 
also for which I'm very grateful because I'm able to talk with 
him. 

I find Jim Rude to have been very knowledgeable, 
first of all, and very interested in the subject of the 
Industrial Welfare Commission over the years. For me, he's been 
very, very approachable, someone that I could talk with and kind 



58 

of lay out what the manufacturers ' positions were relative to 
the Industrial Welfare Commission orders. 

One of the things that we've done in the entire years 
that I've been with CMA, and even prior to that when I was with 
the -- my previous employer, we have always been seeking some 
relief under the wage orders, specifically 189 and 489, the two 
that the manufacturers operate under more specifically. 

I've found Jim and many of the other Commissioners to 
be very receptive to hear us out, but I think that just look at 
the progress that we've made over this long period of time, and 
it kind of tells you where he is . I think he's been very 
receptive, and very, very open to our ideas, but I think he's 
also been very cautious in the action that he ' s taken as a 
result of that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many times have you had to 
appear on behalf of what you'd call exceptions or exemptions, or 
some variation? Is that what they're called? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Petitions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Petitions for some 12 -hour day, or 
whatever it might. How many times have you had to participate 
in those kind of — 

MR. WASHINGTON: Formally, Mr. Chairman, only two, 
but at the time when there's business that is open, when you can 
express your concerns, many. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just general? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, but in those particular 
instances, you're basically down there just kind of getting on 
the record. 



59 

But in terms of formally going through the process, 
only two for those specific orders. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was the outcome of those two? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Way back in '89, 189 the most 
recent, there was some movement on that particular order. At 
that time we were trying to go to a 12-hour, and be able to work 
up to 12 hours in a work day without having to pay overtime 
until you reached a 40-hour work week landmark. 

We got some movement. They did convene a Wage Board. 
That Wage Board came back with the recommendation to the 
Commission, and at that time they were able to go from an 8-hour 
work day under their provisions to a 10-hour work day. 

The problem with this is that it was weighted down 
with a lot of additional rules that were added on to this 
particular recommendation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What kind of rules? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, for example, this had to do 
with the manufacturing, it was a way that you have to go through 
the process of the vote, the filing of the vote requirement, the 
fact that they put in there a minimum — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The vote of the employees? 

MR. WASHINGTON: The vote of the employees. And the 
fact that you had to register. You had to guarantee a minimum 
of 4 hours' work. The fact that there was no flexibility in the 
10 hours that you could work. 

In other words, you vote on schedule, and you were 
locked into that thing. Any deviation would cause you to 
violate the work schedule, and you would subject yourself to 



60 

having to take the vote all over again. 

We've had some — I'm guessing — about 500 
manufacturers who attempted to use that. And out of those 500, 
so far I've only found one. I have not called them all; I don't 
want to say that I have. I've only found one who's still 
struggling with it. It's really a pain in the rear for them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's still doing it? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Beg your pardon? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who is still doing it? 

MR. WASHINGTON: There's one down in Orange County 
that's still working under it, but it's costing them because in 
order for them to continue — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you recall the name of who's — 

MR. WASHINGTON: No, but I have it, you know, fairly 
handy so that I could get it for you. I just don't have it in 
my file with me. 

But I'm amazed at the number that — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Container Corp? 

MR. WASHINGTON: No, they're not one of those. No, 
they are not one . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just teasing. It's not that one, 
no. They don't have a union there, so that wouldn't be 
relevant . 

You have the votes of employees, regardless of their 
collective bargaining agreements? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, the vote is not required if 
you are organized. If you have a collective bargaining unit, a 
representative can make that determination and you would work — 



61 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Otherwise vote. 

But the others tried it and gave up? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Right. It was been unworkable, and 
it's still — because there's so many opportunities to foul up, 
I mean, the way the rules are written, they're very onerous. 
There are so many opportunities for you to foul up . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now, you mentioned having an 
employee vote and guaranteeing four hours . 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Those don't sound particularly 
onerous to me . 

MR. WASHINGTON: Actually it would be, Senator, 
because keep in mind that this is an agreed-type item where you 
would want to try to have flexibility. You would want to be 
able to work up to, and this is part of the problem. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Rude, what's your view about 
those two constraints? 

MR. RUDE: I think there need to be protections when 
you open up flexibility in the workplace. When — the intent 
was to get to more of a 40-hour work week, where there could be 
flexibility built within that. And there are certain 
restrictions that have occurred in doing that. 

For example, in the health care industry, which 
involved the same kind of an issue early on in '89, if an 
employee was normally working, say, 20 hours a week, and that 
was what they wanted to do, or 24 hours a week, two 12 -hour 
shifts, and the employee subsequently decided that they wanted 
to change schedules with another employee and work an additional 



62 

half a day or an additional day, that additional day or half-day 
would be at overtime to the employer. 

So again, it added additional restrictions to 
flexibility within a 40-hour work week. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were you a member at the time of 
the order that Mr. Washington's referred to? 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, do you recall concurring in 
the employee vote in the four-hour minimum constraints? 

MR. RUDE: If — if I'm not mistaken in my 
recollection and memory, that went to a Wage Board, and the Wage 
Board voted. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But didn't you have to affirm it? 

MR. RUDE: That comes, and that's affirmed by us. 
And we really can't count on that unless there are substantial 
differences of decision made from when that Wage — from the 
purpose of that Wage Board being convened. So, when the Wage 
Board comes back — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You give it a general direction? 

MR . RUDE : Correct . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Washington, you mentioned 
you'd been there a second time. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I was there earlier. In fact, Mr. 
Chairman, one of my introductions to California when I first 
began to work with the California Manufacturers Association as 
an employee with my former employer had to do with the — the 
manufacturers was the one who instigated the first suit. 
Whenever the state adopted this and applied it to all the 



63 

employers in California, the manufacturers was one of the 
parties that was a part of that suit. 

Just keep in mind — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which suit do you mean? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, the IWC initially came about 
in the State of California, historically came about, because it 
was supposed to be regulating the women and children. And 
therefore, as it developed, there was no real interest on the 
part of, you know, business and manufacturers, because they 
felt, yes, those kind of protections for those particular 
entities were — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean the suit de-genderized 
it? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, in other words — no, not just 
de-genderf ied it, because you had children involved here. 

What it did, in essence, was that it took it from 
covering just those two specific entities, women and minors, to 
cover the entire employee spectrum. And so, one of the things, 
you know, when I first — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were working for — 

MR. WASHINGTON: Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel 
Corporation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was a party to that? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, we were part of the 
Manufacturers Association, and I was very active. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And they wanted it broadened and 
opened up. 

MR. WASHINGTON: No, they did not. 



64 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. This, though, 
preceded Mr . Rude . 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, it would have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to add anything? 

MR. WASHINGTON: No. 

I think my point is that we are here frequently 
before the Rules Committee on these appointments . 

Mr. Rude is an employer appointee. I've got to tell 
you that in my entire experience down there in terms of the 
appointments from labor and from employers , it ' s been fairly 
partisan, and there is not much question about that. 

We've been almost totally unable to persuade a labor 
vote, and I would say that that's probably true in the opposite 
direction. 

I just wanted to add that I've had an opportunity to 
talk with Mr. Rude on many, many occasions. And while he's 
certainly been responsive to me, and has made me welcome to talk 
with him, I can't say that I've come away from there with all of 
the things that we would like to have. 

We're still doing that now, Senator. We're still 
trying to get additional relief through the IWC. It has been a 
very long haul . 

So, I think that he's been very fair, and been very 
open with the board members, where he stands on the issue. He 
articulates it. 

So, we are strongly supportive of a person like that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think the question is going to 
be, and I have yet to hear enough to reach my own independent 



65 

conclusion, I think the question will be whether he's been 
unduly aggressive as an advocate for the employer community in a 
way that is unnecessary. 

And you could be a conscientious employer perspective 
on the board with, perhaps, less vigor or aggressiveness about 
the representations that get made. 

I think that's what I'm hearing from those who have 
expressed concerns, but we'll get to that in a moment. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And I understand, Mr. Chairman. I 
would like to say that I wish that I could say that, and I could 
show more results to my members that that person had responded 
in that way. And I probably not have to be up here in front of 
you today . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Of course, it might be the public 
member who's not helping you enough, not the employer rep. 

MR. WASHINGTON: You know me, Mr. Chairman. I try 
them all. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I've noticed. Thanks, Mr. 
Washington. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's next? 

MR. ABRAMS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of 
the Committee. 

My name is Jim Abrams . I'm the Executive Vice 
President of the California Hotel and Motel Association. I'm 
also appearing on behalf of the California Lodging Industry 
Association. 

Our members are, in many cases, very, very small. 



66 

The Lodging Industry represents approximately 2 00,000 employees 
throughout the State of California. 

We have for a number of years been very, very 
interested in the work of the Industrial Welfare Commission, 
particularly because the rules and the regulations in California 
are quite often at odds with the rules in other states at the 
federal level, all of which has contributed, unfortunately, to 
some competitive disadvantages that the hospitality and the 
convention industry face here in California. A large component 
of how — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which one, minimum wage? 

MR. ABRAMS: Minimum wage, no, because the minimum 
wage in California is, in essence, tied to the — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Currently it's the same. 

MR. ABRAMS: That ' s right . When it exceeds it, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It can't be lower, but it can go 



higher . 



MR. ABRAMS: Yes, and in those cases it is a problem. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's not what you mean by the 



burden? 



MR. ABRAMS: No. The burden's 8 -hour day, for 
example. Meal and lodging — excuse me. The tip credit, which 
is something — which is something that really is a problem here 
and only in a few other states. So, adding those on top of 
other differences between California and other states, it's 
created a competitive disadvantage, which is the reason we're 
very interested in the Industrial Welfare Commission. 

Mr. Rude, for the years that he's been there, and 



67 

I've been working with the Commission all during that time, I've 
found him to be an extremely conscientious and a hard working 
individual. He worked very hard at understanding all of the 
issues and making sure, whether it is an employer point of view 
or an employee point of view, that he understands what the 
people are saying, the points they are trying to make so that he 
can put everything together in the context. 

Interesting comment you made, Mr. Chairman, that 
perhaps some people might be arguing that Mr. Rude is overly 
aggressive or strenuous in his position 

When Mr. Rude has made the hard votes, and those have 
typically been, particularly year before last, on the minimum 
wage increase, where obviously everything was very partisan, and 
the public member had to make the decision, in essence, because 
of the vote, Mr. Rude was very careful to articulate why he 
voted the way that he did. 

One might disagree with whether the condition of the 
economy in California was in fact as he portrayed it, and in 
fact in dire straits, and necessitated his vote, but I don't 
know that you can quarrel with somebody for articulating a clear 
and consistent position on why he or she is voting in a certain 
way. And I really, I guess, wonder if that is unduly — being 
unduly aggressive in how one perceives Mr. Rude. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think minimum wage is a fair 
dispute on all sides and wouldn't regard that solely as 
sufficient. 

MR. ABRAMS: I understand. 

Interestingly, also, Mr. Washington mentioned the 



68 

12-hour day, the flexible work schedule, which has been a big 
issue for us. 

We did, along with the Restaurant Association, file a 
petition a number of years ago, asking for flexibility to have 
up to 12 hours within the 40-hour work week. 

With all due respect to Mr. Rude, we were not pleased 
with some of the restrictions that he voted for in implementing 
that, in favor of employees. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which ones; do you recall? 

MR. ABRAMS: In particular, in the restaurant 
industry, we have a lot of part-time employees. And what they 
like to do, particularly students, is trade-off schedules. "You 
have finals next week. I'd love to work 36 hours next week. 
I'll take your schedule." 

One of the conditions that was voted upon and put 
into the regulation was that it has to be a vote of two-thirds 
of the employees as it affects their regular work schedules. 
So, for example, if my regular work schedule is to work one to 
four, I can't, on a week by week basis, or month by month basis, 
change that. If I, as an employer, want to have a flexible work 
schedule, it's got to be for what that employee normally would 
work for the course of six months or a year, whatever his or her 
regular schedule is. That's very, very onerous for the 
hospitality industry, where employees like to change schedules 
frequently. 

You have a vote, and the employees vote that for the 
next year, or whatever period of time is covered by the 
agreement, I will work three 12-hour shifts, or two 9s, or 



69 

whatever it is going to be. And we find it very onerous, too, 
as employers, to allow people to change shifts. 

Mr. Rude does not always agree — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This bad guy did that to you? 

MR. ABRAMS: Absolutely. 

Having said that, and I don't mean to be facetious at 
all, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Rude listens to the issues. And 
while he certainly represents the point of view which he was 
picked to represent, and which the statute requires that he 
represent — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand that. 

MR. ABRAMS: — that is what he is there for. And 
he's done an admirable job, as far as we are concerned, over the 
years that he's been there in being conscientious. He is at the 
meetings; he's hard working; he's diligent. He pays attention, 
and I, quite frankly, wish that all of the Commissioners over 
the years had done the same . 

So, we very heartily support his reconfirmation to 
the Commission. 

Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Next. 

MR. LUEVANO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members 
of the Committee. 

My name is Tom Luevano. I represent the California 
Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, and also here today 
on behalf of the Health Care Human Resource Management 
Association of California, of which there are about 450 members. 



70 

I'm here to show our support for Commissioner Rude ' s 
confirmation to the IWC. I've had the pleasure of knowing 
Commissioner Rude professionally as a human resource executive 
for well over twelve years, and as a Commissioner for well over 
nine. 

We have found Commissioner Rude ' s open-mindedness and 
his responsiveness to issues quite refreshing. He is 
sympathetic and compassionate to the issues of both employees 
and employers whenever they testify. And his integrity, ethics, 
and his leadership have been well received by the regulatory 
staff and business community, and most recently by the 
Commissioners themselves by electing him as Chair of that 
Commission. 

Commissioner Rude provides the only continuity left 
on that Commission, since he is a nine-plus year member of the 
Commission. The rest of the Commissioners, I think Robert Hanna 
was appointed in 1991, so we don't really have anybody with a 
long-standing level of continuity that we need there. 

We therefore ask this body to consider reappointing 
Commissioner Rude to this position as an IWC Commissioner. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

Any questions of the witness? 

Anybody else speaking in favor of the nomination? 

MS. BROYLES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members. 

I'm Julie Broyles with the California Chamber of 
Commerce, and I'm here today to speak in support of Mr. Rude and 
his reappointment to the Industrial Welfare Commission. 

Due to the lateness of the hour, I won't go in and 



71 

say yet again what a diligent, hard working, and conscientious 
member of the board he has been, but we truly have found him to 
be so and would hope that you would seriously consider his 
reappointment to the Commission. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

Any questions? 

Next witness. 

MR. GABRIEL: Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, 
my name is Roy Gabriel, representing the California Farm Bureau 
Federation. I'm here to support the reappointment of Mr. Rude 
as the management member of the Industrial Welfare Commission 
for the reasons that are previously stated. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Any questions of Mr. Gabriel? 

Any further witnesses? 

MR. MAHAN: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 
my name is Paul Mahan. I represent the California Trucking 
Association. 

I don ' t know that I could add anything that hasn ' t 
already been said about the attributes of Mr. Rude, but we are 
here to support his reappointment to the Industrial Welfare 
Commission as the management representative. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

Committee have any questions? 

Does that conclude the support? 

There is opposition present, I assume. If you'd come 
forward. 



72 

MS. BOUCHER: Good afternoon, Chairman and Members. 

My name's Debby Boucher. I'm a registered nurse, and 
I'm here representing the California Nurses Association. 

We're opposed to the confirmation of Mr. Rude, 
basically because of his positions and votes on the 12-hour 
shift, which has been devastating to nurses. 

In the past, the 8-hour shift has been the standard 
in the hospital industry. Nurses have been compensated for any 
work over 8 hours . 

The recent ruling that allowed hospitals to offer 
12-hour shifts at straight pay to nurses has caused two things. 
First off, nurses will make 15-20 percent less with 
uncompensated 12-hour shifts. And also, the error rate, the 
patient injury rate, and the employee injury rate during the 
last four hours of the 12-hour shift — in other words, the four 
hours that we would like to be compensated extra — is 
problematic in hospitals. 

As hospitals restructure, there are fewer nurses for 
more patients, for sicker patients, and there are more injuries 
because of that. 

What we're also finding in the industry is that while 
some nurses do prefer the 12-hour shifts, most of those nurses 
are younger nurses. As the nursing population ages, and the 
average age of a registered nurse in California is 43, it 
becomes more and more difficult to work a 12-hour shift. As a 
registered nurse, I can tell you, at the end of 12 hours, you 
are mentally exhausted and physically exhausted. It's very hard 
work. 



73 

The demand on, for example, a 50-year-old woman to 
stand, walk, lift, and think accurately for 12 hours, and to do 
all that for 20 percent less pay, devalues the role of the 
nurse. 

I thank you for your time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Question, Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I'm just curious. The first I was 
aware of the opposition of the Nurses Association was today. 

When did you formulate your position? 

MS. BOUCHER: I believe, and as you know, I'm new as 
a lobbyist, but I believe that this has been our position since 
the last hearing, which I believe was four years ago. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Did you communicate to Mr. Rude your 
opposition? 

MS. BOUCHER: I believe that we did, but I can't say 
for sure. The opposition today? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Yes. 

MS. BOUCHER: I don't believe that we did. In the 
past I believe that we have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Unlike a bill, where somebody 
might be surprised, when we do confirmations there aren't any 
great surprises about who pops up on both sides of the issues. 

It's a nice courtesy, but I don't know that it — 

SENATOR LEWIS: I guess that was the question. As a 
relatively new Member of the Rules Committee, I was kind of 
curious about the decorum. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm new, too. All I can tell you 



74 

is, I've been hearing about this for four years. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I've served on policy committees with 
chairmen that wouldn't allow opposition witnesses to testify — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not me. 

Mr. Henning, Ambassador Henning. 

MR. HENNING: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, the California Labor Federation is opposed to the 
reappointment of Mr. Rude. 

We regard as outrageous the 12 -hour day structure 
established by this Commission in recent years, and in every 
case save one, he voted for that. That means 12 hours of work, 
no overtime after eight. 

Now, one of the employer representatives here 
indicated that, after all, the workers had to vote for it. 

I don't know if any of you are aware of how that vote 
is conducted. The employer conducts the election. No neutral 
source, no governmental source. The Commission doesn't conduct 
the election through its agencies. It's conducted by the 
employer. He keeps the ballots. He counts the ballots. 
There's no means of appeal. So, it's a violation of every 
concept of labor-management adjudication or reconciliation of 
views. It's just a thing imposed by the employer. 

And Mr. Rude is part of the group that favors that 
and has put it into place. 

Some of the representatives of industry who spoke 
here, understandably, were pleased by it. The hospital 
industry, of which he is an employer, certainly entitled to 
representation of his employer's interests, the hotel and 



75 

restaurant industry, the amusement industry, recreation 
industry, all of them have imposed the 12-hour day through these 
fraud elections that could never be considered for one moment in 
the federal sphere, in the representation, election, or 
determination of the worker positions. 

He voted with the other members to have a subminimum 
wage for tipped employees. Outlawed by the State Supreme Court, 
which is hardly a radical, leftist organization. As I remember, 
the vote on the Supreme Court was unanimous against this body. 
This indicates — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was the issue before them? 

MR. HENNING: The subminimum wage. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, yes. 

MR. HENNING: That if you're going to get tips, you 
should have something less than a minimum wage required for 
economic survival, ruled out by the State Supreme Court; 
although, adopted by this Commission, voted for by Mr. Rude. 

There is a provision in the law which, incidentally, 
was established — the whole concept was established by Hiram 
Johnson in the years before the First World War, when reformist 
legislation was moving in Washington and several states. And it 
is mandatory that this body review the situation every two years 
as to the adequacy of the minimum wage. 

We've asked for reviews time and again, and been 
defied and ignored. So, it has not met its statutory 
obligations . 

Obviously, we are strongly opposed. 

In the concept of Hiram Johnson, this structure was 



76 

established to protect those who have so little, basically. 
Restaurant workers scrape by for economic survival . So it is 
with many of the others who are governed by the minimum wage. 

Minimum wage is existence wage. That's all it is. 
And it's being denied its fullness by Mr. Rude and those who 
believe as he does. 

Now, it's said: but he's entitled to represent the 
employer view. They're not all that way. We deal with 
employers who would never, under any condition, impose a 12 -hour 
day on a worker and say, "You work 12 -hour day without 
overtime." It'd be insulting. So, he isn't representative of 
all employers, not at all. 

He's representative of a single group of employers 
who believe that's the way workers should be treated. 

We are in opposition. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MR. DAVENPORT: Mr. Chairman, I'm Allen Davenport. I 
represent the Service Employees International Union. I'm here 
today to speak on behalf of our janitors and home care workers 
who are minimum wage workers in hotels, amusements, hospitals, 
office buildings throughout California. 

Also on behalf of the nurses, I think the 12-hour day 
argument has been made, so I'm going to focus on a couple of 
other things here . 

I had the opportunity, while the employers were 
testifying here about seeking relief from the IWC for 
competitive disadvantages to industries and appealing on 
conditions of the economy, to review the Code. And when I 



77 

looked in the Code, I saw that the responsibility of the 
Industrial Welfare Commission is not in those areas. 

It's in the areas of determining if wages are 
inadequate to supply the cost of proper living, if the hours or 
conditions of work are prejudicial to the health, morals, or 
welfare of employees. That's the duty of the Industrial Welfare 
Commission. 

Industrial Welfare Commission has apparently found 
that wages of $170 a week, which amounts to around $150 
take-home pay, $600 a month, they find, are adequate to supply 
the cost of proper living. 

I challenge any of you to live on $600 a month for a 
month. All right? You look at the cost of apartments in the 
want ads . You look at the cost of a bag of groceries . 

This Industrial Welfare Commission has simply ignored 
its responsibilities and failed to do its duty under the law, 
and Mr. Rude has been a leader in that effort. You rejected 
Lynne Pollack for similar reasons. I urge you to reject Mr. 
Rude. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there others that wish to 
comment? 

Now it's Committee Member time. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have questions for Mr. Rude. 

Mr. Rude, state law clearly requires that you review 
the minimum wage every two years . It ' s my understanding that 
you resisted that as a member of that Commission. Is that true? 

MR. RUDE: No, it isn't, Senator. 

We have an open review on the minimum wage. It's 



78 

calendared almost every meeting for minimum wage review. 

SENATOR AYALA: Then it's a matter of record that 
these folks who have stated that you don't get involved in that 
type of activity, even though the law requires you to do it? 

MR. RUDE: It's a matter of public record on the 
agenda that we seek testimony, we receive information 
periodically, both from labor organizations, employer 
organizations, academic institutions regarding the state of the 
economy and the impact of the minimum wage. Those are sent to 
us routinely. 

SENATOR AYALA: And the IWC does, indeed, set the 
minimum wage? 

MR. RUDE: Correct. The minimum can be increased, I 
guess, in three ways in the State of California. One is through 
legislative action; one is through the Industrial Welfare 
Commission action; and third automatically is — 

SENATOR AYALA: But your Commission could do it? 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: Well, they haven't had a raise since 
1988, I'm told. 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you think that's fair? 

MR. RUDE: In reviewing that, the economy in 
California has been in a recession, and I can't count the number 
of months now, but I know it's 40 months plus, going on 44 
months, 45 months. 

In looking at the context of — for increasing the 
minimum wage, is the minimum wage enough? Probably not. Does 



79 

it impact, though, the health and welfare of all employees? 
Yes, it does. And by increasing the minimum wage, that also has 
an impact. It has an impact of unemployment or disemployment as 
well . 

And as a Commissioner, I've got to look, as well as 
the other Commissioners, we look at that total economic context, 
not just is the dollar amount enough, because I think most of us 
are probably agreed, it probably isn't. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Assembly Speaker's Economic 
Summit in 1993, in Southern California, a number of prominent 
Calif ornians, including Pete Ueberroth, called for an increase 
in the minimum wage . 

What connection do you see between the economic 
development in California and the minimum wage? 

MR. RUDE: We've received a variety of different 
studies on that. One study indicated that, on one hand, 
increasing the minimum wage doesn't really have a negative 
economic increase. On the other hand, a variety of studies 
indicate that it does; it exacerbates unemployment and 
disemployment . 

So, I think it does impact. It does impact the 
economy of the State of California. 

Similarly, as we — we're talking in the press, and 
everywhere else, about global economies with GATT, and so on and 
so forth, in the United States itself, in states themselves, we 
are one of the eleven industrial states of the nation, and our 
minimum wage is consistent with what the federal government 
offers as a minimum wage for the other states, industrialized 



80 

states, in the nation as well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry. Are you saying that 
they're at the same level? There aren't states higher than us? 

MR. RUDE: There are some states that are higher. 

What I'm referring to, sir, is the industrialized 
states . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That they're the same? 

MR. RUDE: Pretty much the same. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's higher? 

MR. RUDE: Alaska, Hawaii, I think Nevada is. I 
don't have them all on the tip of my fingers. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That nasty competitor Nevada, 
taking all of our jobs, higher minimum wage. 

SENATOR AYALA: The minimum wage is 4.25? 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: It was set six years ago? 

MR. RUDE: I believe so, yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: Don't you think inflation is eating 
some of that 4.25? That we're talking about less buying power? 
These folks are not entitled to that adjustment? 

MR. RUDE: Inflation clearly has eaten into the 
purchasing power of the dollar. 

SENATOR AYALA: Well, of course. If inflation is up, 
your buying power is less, so it's much less than 4.25 six years 
later. 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: Don't you believe that they should 
get some kind of a review and adjustment then? 



81 

MR. RUDE: We do review. 

SENATOR AYALA: The adjustment as well. You can 
review all you want, but adjustments that go along with the 
need. 

MR. RUDE: Senator, when we look at the minimum wage, 
and we review the minimum wage, we also look at the impact of 
increasing the minimum wage on people receiving the minimum wage 
or working poor. 

For example, we had a hearing with farmworkers. And 
one of the individuals testifying in that hearing indicated that 
the last time the minimum wage increase went up, her total 
income went down because part of her earnings was — which she 
earned in salary — part of her earnings was involved with AFDC 
payments. And when the minimum wage went up, her AFDC payments 
went down, and the net loss was greater than her gain because of 
the increase in the minimum wage . 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm not an economist, but you have a 
hard time convincing me that when you increase the minimum wage, 
they're going to lose money. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, the AFDC payment went down 
in that circumstance; did it not? 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So it saved the taxpayers some 
money . 

MR. RUDE: It was the relationship — it may have 
saved the taxpayers money, but for that individual, it probably 
wasn't a beneficial — 

SENATOR AYALA: Did income tax and all these other 



82 

taxes go up for them? What is the rationale there? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's really federal law and 
regulation on earned income. 

It's now been changed last year by the Congress, and 
so I don ' t know whether that would be as true today as it was 
when you last heard the testimony. I guess, if it was based on 
what happened, it's what happened prior to 1988, so probably the 
law has changed three or four times, I would guess, since then, 
but most significantly last year on earned income credits. 

Pardon me, Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you believe that the minimum wage 
as currently set is an appropriate level at this point? 

MR. RUDE: It's a competitive level of pay for 
minimum wage with the other states . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Should that be the principle 
consideration, do you think? How do you go about weighing? 

And I understand the balancing you need to do. And 
you've been forthright in saying it's probably inadequate in 
terms of just adequate support for a human being or a family. 

Could you try to quantify the various considerations 
that would go into tilting the balance one way or the other? 

I'm trying especially to understand, if the 
California economy is as robust as some think it might shortly 
be, does that change the equation, or are there still other 
considerations, international economics, other state 
competition, or whatever, that are still sufficiently compelling 
to make it unlikely? 

MR. RUDE: I think that looking at the state economy 



83 

is an important variable. When the minimum wage was increased 
last, the economy was strong. 

I voted for an increase in the minimum wage that 
wasn't as high as it ultimately got to, but I saw the need to 
increase it at that time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was that one? 

MR. RUDE: That was — it was at 3.35, and I think it 
was 3.75. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So this was back in "88? 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

I would look at the composition of the minimum wage 
wage earner as well. Data we've received over the years 
indicates that many of the minimum wage wage earners are youth 
who are living at home. They are not the individuals who are 
supporting a family on minimum wage . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What proportion do you think that 
is? 

MR . RUDE : I'm going to to have to swag it , but I 
don ' t want to — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Even if it were — 

MR. RUDE: It is predominant. I'm going to say 
around 55 percent or so. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are youth living at home, that 
kind of circumstance? 

MR. RUDE: Primarily, correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What industries do you think are 
most dependent or rely the most on minimum wage work forces? 

MR. RUDE: I'd say primarily restaurants, and hotel 



84 

and lodging establishments. Some agricultural; agricultural, 
depending upon the kind of agricultural work that's being done, 
but primarily I'd say in service. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would you disagree that all three 
of those sectors are not industries that move out of the state? 
They are not mobile . The land is here . Maybe somebody could 
take something out of production, but the land's here; they 
aren't moving. The restaurant and lodging industry is here. 
The service industries are here, so at least relative to other 
business organizations, these are among the least mobile, where 
the other state competition is the least relevant, or less 
relevant than it is to, maybe, a manufacturing site, or 
something. 

MR. RUDE: I would say that that's probably true with 
hotels and lodging establishments and restaurants . 

The testimony we have received as to whether 
restaurants move in is an issue, whether or not they want to 
come — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, they go in and out of 
business a lot — 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — but that's different than 
moving to another -- 

MR. RUDE: Many of the restaurants that testified in 
our public hearings are fairly small; mom-and-pop, if you want 
to use that term, establishments, with very thin margins. Their 
cost of doing business has increased significantly over the last 
ten to fifteen years: insurance costs — 



85 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think those things are true; I 
agree . 

MR. RUDE: Part of that mixture comes into play. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there much minimum wage in the 
health area? 

MR. RUDE: Very little, except probably in the home 
health area, personal assistance, in that area. The bulk of 
health care — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not in the hospital setting? 

MR. RUDE: Not in acute care hospitals, no. 

In agriculture, as I recall testimony there, 
obviously, land's not moving back and forth, or at least we're 
not going to annex Nevada or whatever, but it is the cost of 
goods sold, and of the cost of growing, and shipping, and 
supplying. Those factors play into it as well, and again, other 
costs of doing business. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you had to speculate, and 
that's all I can urge, first with respect to the process of 
conducting a full review every two years, it sounded to me a 
little like it wasn't much of a full review, or isn't. 

Now, I'm not there, and I don't see it, and so 
perhaps I just misunderstand how seriously you take each comment 
that's made at a meeting. 

I would think conducting a full review would 
necessitate fact finding and voting on conclusions. 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you actually go to a vote every 
so often, including no more than every two years, or what? 



86 



MR. RUDE: At the end of the last vote, and I don't 
have the date, we go to a full vote. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The '88 vote? That's the last 
increase. There were hearings subsequent to '88. 

MR. RUDE: We had a discussion, and I'm blanking out 
on you and I apologize for that, but I can give you a chronology 
of it in writing later if you would like. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you want. Just as you can 
recall . 

MR. RUDE: There was a full vote, and maybe someone 
from the audience can — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And it was voted down? 

MR. RUDE: Correct, not to go to a full hearing at 
that time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, not to go to the full hearing, 
so not actually a vote on someone saying, "I move we raise it to 
$5 — " 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — and people voted yes and no; 
that didn't occur? 

MR. RUDE: Correct. We haven't had a full 
Commission, either, which I think is an important issue. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who are you missing? 

MR. RUDE: Well, it depends what year you're looking 
at, but — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aren't you full now, though? 

MR. RUDE: Not that I'm aware of. Our last meeting 
in November, we had four Commissioners. 



87 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which slot — 

MR. RUDE: It's the public. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The public one? 

MR. RUDE: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess that's a way not to get 

■ 

anything done. 

I'm sorry. Other Members pop in any time that you 
might wish to. 

MR. RUDE: Can I respond — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It was Ms. Vuksich? 

MR . RUDE : Correct . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: She's no longer there? 

MR. RUDE: No, she's not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were you going to add something? 

MR. RUDE: Yes, sir. 

I wanted to respond to the 12-hour arrangement, if I 
could, and a little bit of more personal history. 

I've worked in the human resources field for, I 
guess, it's going on 20 years now, and one of the interests I 
had in the Industrial Welfare Commission years ago was when 
nurses came to me and said, "Gee whiz, we would like to be able 
to work more flexible staffing arrangements, but we can't 
because the employer doesn't want to pay overtime for those." 

And being young and naive, I thought, well, why 
wouldn't someone be able to have an agreement with their 
employer that would kind of add some flexibility in determining 
when they could work more flexible staffing. And studying the 
law a little bit, and kind of getting into it, realizing they 



88 



couldn't because the law is the law. 

And one of my interests in getting on the Industrial 
Welfare Commission was to take a look at where employers and 
employees could work together to bring about mutually beneficial 
arrangements that could occur. 

A lot of that is in the backdrop. There's been a 
fairly significant change in the work force demographics over 
the last 15-20 years. There are more women of child-bearing age 
in the workplace, and in health care, that's always been the 
case. There are longer commute issues that people have to 
respond to as urban sprawl has taken its place, and I think we 
all experience that. There are commuter obligations now to 
reduce commute time, and you know, things that impact people's 
commute schedules, and so on and so forth. 

People are wanting to work, in some cases, with 
certain restrictions and certain protections, more hours in the 
day and less days a week. And what we tried to do is provide 
those protections . 

To argue that we've imposed the 12-hour shift on the 
work force, I haven't found the evidence of that, because 
periodically I ask the Division of Labor Standards and 
Enforcement, which is the enforcement wing of the policies that 
we put forward, and say: Please let me know if these things are 
creating problems, or if there's a preponderance of problems 
occurring. And there aren't any. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many businesses have a 12 -hour 
shift? Can you quantify that? Do you keep that kind of 
statistic? 



89 



MR. RUDE: No, I couldn't tell you. They are both, 
though, I know as factually, are both in nonunion and union 
environments. The California Nursing Association itself has 
contracts that allow for these kind of arrangements . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We heard in the manufacturing 
sector, probably very few. Does that seem correct to you? 

MR. RUDE: I would think so, because over the last 
four years, we've had companies, employees, come forward from 
manufacturing companies saying, "We would like greater 
flexibility, but we're not going to do it because it's too 
onerous . " 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about in health? 

MR. RUDE: In the health field — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How wide spread? 

MR. RUDE: It's very — I couldn't quote you a 
percentage, and if I had to swag it, I'd say maybe 20 percent of 
the organizations — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I've learned something from 
intelligent guesses, which is more than I know. 

How about Sutter? 

MR. RUDE: I don't know whether they exist there, 
either. Those are usually done individually by units based on 
staff requests. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you think there are some there, 
12-hour shifts? 

MR. RUDE: Yes, I'm sure there are. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I wanted to ask you earlier, and I 
guess I lost my thought, to speculate a bit on the next full 



90 

review of the minimum wage issue. 

I happen to be one of those that think Clinton made a 
mistake in not making the minimum wage increase a national 
issue, a high priority, rather than some other choices he made 
about issues. That's irrelevant, I guess, sorry. 

But when the next full review occurs, how is the 
teeter-totter doing for you in terms of the various 
considerations that you have to run through? 

And I'm not in any way suggesting that your 
confirmation is in any way conditioned or dependent on any 
answers you give about future acts. I want to be very clear 
about that . 

I'm just trying to understand your philosophy and 
approach. Was it a close call the last time you looked at it, 
or not? Are there changes that tilt it differently? 

Just to the extent that you can comment on that. 

MR . RUDE : Sure , I'd be happy to . 

I think the last time we looked at it, for some of 
the reasons you discussed about maybe Clinton making a mistake 
not doing it, we had health care coming in, a major cross for 
the employer in the context of increasing the minimum wage, that 
makes sense. And reading Robert Reich and some of the other 
comments on that, that was part of the reason why they didn't 
want to move forward as well. 

I think as we move into a more robust economy in 
California, I think that as we start looking at the further 
erosion of the impact of the minimum wage in the context of the 
overall economy and the overall impact on labor costs in the 



91 



state, I would seriously look at it again. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other Members, any questions? 

Yes, Mr. Rankin, did you wish to add something. 

MR. RANKIN: Tom Rankin, California Labor Federation. 

I wish to clarify a couple of points, if I could. 

The full review is spelled out in the statute, and it 
involves three public hearings, setting up a Wage Board, and 
three further public hearings. 

There have been two conducted in the last seven 
years . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Two of those? 

MR. RANKIN: Yes, those of those. The last was 
concluded in August of 1993, when a 25 cent increase in the 
minimum wage was proposed, and Mr. Rude voted against a meager 
25 cent increase in August of '93. 

Since that time, he has consistently refused, even 
though we have appeared at almost every — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you say '93, Mr. Rankin? So 
that was when that whole process had been conducted. 

MR. RANKIN: That was started — that process that 
ended in August of '93, was started, that full review, in 
December of 1991. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is probably in the public 
record, but one of your supporters had mentioned as a witness 
that they thought you had been very forthright in stating 
reasons on the record for your opposition. 

From your recollection, can you restate those? 

MR. RUDE: At that time, I believe our unemployment 



92 

rate was 10 percent-plus in the State of California. We were 
not doing well, and the trend line did not look good for the 
economy of this state. 

I'm assuming that that was part of that, in addition 
to looking at some potential costs associated with the 
imposition of the health reform package. 

MR. RANKIN: The main point is, though, that ever 
since that time, Mr. Rude had consistently refused to open that 
process, even though that process takes from 18 months to two 
years before you get to the end of it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have there been petitions to do 
that? 

MR. RANKIN: We have appeared at almost every IWC 
meeting, asking him. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many has that been? 

MR. RANKIN: Since August of '93, do you mean? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How often do they meet? 

MR. RANKIN: Once a month, except they haven't had a 
quorum for a few months . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have this absent member or 
vacancy. 

Have they voted to not — 

MR. RANKIN: They have — there have been motions at 
almost every meeting where we appeared to increase — to open 
the review, and Mr. Rude has consistently voted against them 
without comment, without comment. And the problem is — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How does Mr. Novey vote on those? 

MR. RANKIN: He votes for opening review. 



93 



The problem is, the purpose of that two-year review 
was to allow for incremental increases with inflation. When the 
Industrial Welfare Commission waits for seven, eight, nine 
years, they never can catch up with inflation. They didn't 
catch up with it in 1988. To catch up with it now, they'd have 
to catch up with what they did in 1988, which represented a 
great decrease in the value of the minimum wage. 

If you look at it back in the '60s, it used to take a 
person above the poverty level by a considerable amount. It 
doesn ' t do that any more . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Mr. Rankin. 

Is there anyone else that would wish to comment? Are 
there Members who want to ask further questions? 

My recommendation to the Committee, I think your year 
is running here pretty soon as well. Perhaps Nancy would remind 
me of the date. 

MR. RUDE: I believe it's the 15th. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's that we thank everyone for 
their testimony, and schedule it on next Monday for a final 
vote, one way or the other. 

Thank you very much, sir. 

MR. RUDE: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our final one that requires some 
public testimony now is Ms. Thomas. 

Gerti, if you'd join us up here. Thank you for your 
patience in — 

MS. THOMAS: Being on the State Board, you get 
conditioned to it. 



94 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know what you mean. 

If you wanted to begin with any opening, I'll ask 
Senator Beverly to conduct it for a moment . 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Would you like to make a statement 
why you think you should be retained 

MS. THOMAS: Yes, Senator. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is 
Gerti Thomas . I am presently a member of the State Board of 
Education, and I'm here seeking reconfirmation for my 
reappointment . 

I'm a product of the educational system of the State 
of Louisiana and the State of Alabama. My basic education was 
in Louisiana, and my first degree was in Alabama at Tuskegee 
University, and my graduate work was done at Golden Gate 
University. 

I am a product of what they call vocational 
education. My first degree is in home economics, specializing 
in dietetics . I am a registered dietitian and also I have a 
degree in administration. 

I enjoy being on the State Board. I consider the 
State Board a strong board. We consider ourselves advocates for 
children in the State of California. 

I, like Mr. Malkasian, have been in contact with 
Superintendent-elect Delaine Eastin. We agree on many things, 
and one of the main things we agree on is that many of our 
students, the majority of the students coming out of high school 
do not go to college and are not equipped for the world of work. 
And we feel that California needs to do something about that, 



95 



and she is very interested in perpetuating educational 
technology and vocational education, which has been dying in 
California for the past 20-some years. 

And I would love to remain on the Board because I 
feel that I have a voice. And she said to me, "I have an ally 
in you," and I said, "Yes, you have." 

I don't feel we're going to have the problems we have 
had in the past . We have to cooperate . And the main problems 
that we had during the Honig and Carrabino days were personality 
conflicts. And if you could have attended some of the meetings, 
you would know what I'm talking about. They battled backwards 
and forward . 

The Board now is more stabilized, although we do not 
have our full complement. We're more stabilized. We're ready 
to work with Superintendent-elect Eastin. She came before us a 
few weeks at our last meeting last month. She is coming — 
we're meeting with her next week. 

And the system of the four superintendents, I agree 
with Mr. Malkasian, if I was going to be in charge of something, 
I certainly would want to select the people that I was going to 
work with, because there you feel that you have people who will 
be cooperative with you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So you think you can work that out 
with her? 

MS. THOMAS: I think we can work that out with 
Delaine. I feel very confident that we can, because I don't 
think we have any members on the Board who want to push for 
anything else. And I feel that she understands that, and we 



96 



will cooperate. She nominates them, and we appoint them. And I 
don't think that, the type of person she is, that she would 
appoint anyone who thought differently than she does. So, she's 
a strong advocate for education, and her appointees will be 
strong advocates for education. And the Board can't go any 
other way because we're advocates for education of the children 
in this state. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you think are the two or 
three greatest challenges to education in California? 

MS. THOMAS: The first one is bilingual education, in 
my opinion. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the problem there? 

MS. THOMAS: The young people who come in our state 
who do not speak English after the elementary school, we have 
had students come in at the junior level and the secondary, the 
high school level, but many of them learn English because they 
want to learn English. 

We had a young man, Mr. Kim, who was a member of the 
Board, who came here at 14 years old, did not speak a word of 
English. Learned to speak English; ended up being appointed to 
the State Board of Education and as a senator. 

And that's the problem. If the young people don't 
speak English, we have to provide a way for them to speak 
English if we expect them to succeed. 

Many of the districts now have assistants or aides in 
the classroom who speak the primary language who can help the 
young people. But they have to learn English. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are we not doing now that you 



97 



would want to change? 

MS. THOMAS: I would want to see us hire more aides, 
because we do not have the teachers in this state who speak all 
the different languages and dialects that we have in the 
schools. And if we can hire aides, persons who speak their 
language, then we have a chance to help those young people. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was the Stockton dispute 
about? 

MS. THOMAS: That was a dispute within the district, 
and you have on both sides of the table, you have people who 
want bilingual education, you have teachers who don't want it. 
And they're saying if the students haven't learned it by the 
time he's in fifth grade, if he starts elementary school here, 
and the Stockton dispute centered around that. And it was 
really strong, I'll say. We had advocates on both sides. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What were they arguing about? 

MS. THOMAS: The system of teaching bilingual 
education. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did somebody want to make it 
different? 

MS. THOMAS: I would think so. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How did they want to change it? 

MS . THOMAS : They wanted the young people to be in 
the classroom for a certain number of years. Other people say 
leave them in as long as it takes them to learn English. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean, they'd be in the other 
language classroom? 

MS. THOMAS: Yes. 



98 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: For a length of time? 

MS. THOMAS: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And the other argument was, get 
them into English more quickly? 

MS. THOMAS: As soon as you can. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now, do you think the State Board 
is likely to change whatever your current approach to that? 
What is your current approach to that? 

MS. THOMAS: The current approach at this time is on 
the local level. And the young people learn the English either 
in first, second, third, fourth, fifth grade, and then they're 
equipped to go into high school. That, to me, is the way it 
should be. 

And if a student comes into the state older, into the 
country at an older age and doesn't learn — and does not speak 
English, then he should get some special attention to help him 
learn English. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does any of that require changing 
your policy at the Board level? 

MS. THOMAS: I don't think so. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, this discussion that's coming 
up, I guess, next week — 

MS. THOMAS: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — will that result in a change, 
or what's likely there? 

MS. THOMAS: I'm not on the administrative committee 
because I chair the legislative committee, and I miss a lot of 
their discussions. 



99 

But I do feel that the strong side is to maintain, 
that we should maintain our policy of bilingual education in 
this state. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's your own philosophy? 

MS. THOMAS: That's my philosophy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess one of the recent debates 
in the state has been about privatizing or voucher education. 
What's your thought about that? 

MS. THOMAS: I think we have a good education system 
in this state. I don't think we need to, quote-quote, "throw 
the baby out with the bath water." 

If there are problems in it, let's improve them, but 
not let's just destroy the whole system. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Can I ask a follow-up to that 
question? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sure. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Did the State Board of Education, 
didn't you pass a resolution in opposition to Prop. 174, the 
state voucher initiative? 

MS. THOMAS: Did we pass a resolution? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Yes. 

MS. THOMAS: That was a long time ago, let me think. 
But I know the state did not — the State Board did not support 
the voucher. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Yes, but my recollection was that the 
State Board of Education actually passed a resolution in 
opposition to Prop. 174. 

MS. THOMAS: We were opposed to it. 



100 

SENATOR LEWIS: Was it a unanimous vote? 

MS. THOMAS: I can't remember that, John. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 

I'd suggest the same thing here, that we perhaps hold 
it, give it a week to just let everyone mull. We have a short 
time here, so it'll have to be, I believe again, next Monday. 

SENATOR PETRIS: We haven't heard from Alameda yet. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, we haven't. We'll note for 
the record that that is Senator Petris ' s district. 

MS. THOMAS: Yes, it is. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't have anything further. 
Did you want to add anything? You heard kind of a lot of the 
questions we asked — 

MS. THOMAS: You asked Mr. Malkasian, and my answers 
are very similar because the Board is a united Board. 

As I said, we don't have our full complement, but 
those of us who are there, we vote together, and we're 
interested in educating the children of California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, thank you. 

MS. THOMAS: Thank you, and thank you for your 



patience 



[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
4:40 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 



101 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this / (J day of January, 1995. 





Shorthand Repo 



jT^fzAiTTp^ 

d Reporter 



265-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.75 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 265-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 







STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 112 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



DOCUMENTS O&T. 

JAN 2 7 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



MONDAY, JANUARY 9,1995 
1:35 RM. 



267-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 112 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1995 
1:35 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

S. WILLIAM MALKASIAN, Member 
State Board of Education 

GERTI B. THOMAS, Member 
State Board of Education 

JAMES T. RUDE, Member 
Industrial Welfare Commission 

ROBERT A. ALLEBORN, Member 
Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 

DAVID MERTES 

California Community Colleges 

MICHAEL STENNIS, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 

STACEY GREEN, Chair 

California State Student Association 

ROSIE B. GARCIA, Warden 
California State Prison, Centinela 

SENATOR HENRY MELLO 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued! 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

HELEN LOPEZ, Chair 

Centinela Citizens Advisory Committee 

MORGAN SNYDER, 8th Grade Representative 
Simi Elementary School 

GENE BRISTER, Mayor 
City of El Centro 

ROY MABRY, State President 

California Association of Black Correctional Workers 

LINDON LEWIS 

California Department of Corrections 

MARK T. GRAN, Mayor 
City of Imperial 

ANITA PEREZ, San Quentin Chapter 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

RAY CASTILLO, Community Resource Manager 

Centinela State Prison 

President, Imperial Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

JIM GOMEZ, Director 

California Department of Corrections 

BILL CONDIT, President 

Board of Directors 

Imperial Irrigation District 

DON NOVEY, State President 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

MIKE JIMENEZ, Executive Vice President 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

JEFF THOMPSON 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association 

ALBERT B. GERVIN, Centinela Chapter President 
California Correctional Peace Officers Association 



IV 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

S. WILLIAM MALKASIAN, Member 

State Board of Education 1 

Motion to Confirm 1 

Committee Action 2 

GERTI B. THOMAS, Member 

State Board of Education 2 

Motion to Confirm 2 

Committee Action 2 

JAMES T. RUDE, Member 

Industrial Welfare Commission 2 

Statement of Intention by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER 2 

Motion to Confirm 4 

Committee Action 4 

ROBERT A. ALLEBORN, Member 

Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 4 

Background and Experience 5 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Student Fees 5 

Hardest Decision during Tenure on Board 7 

Amenability of Local College Districts to 

Board Policies 8 

Temptation to Micro-manage Chancellor's 

Office 8 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS on Student Fees 

Increases 8 



INDEX (Continued^ 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Sentiment on Board for Reducing Student Fees ... 10 
Years behind on Deferred Maintenance 10 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Relationship between Board and Local District 

Boards 11 

Function of Board 11 

DR. DAVID MERTES, Chancellor 

California Community Colleges 12 

Use of Permissive Fees 12 

Ability of Students to Transfer from 

One District to Another 13 

Motion to Confirm 14 

Committee Action 15 

MICHAEL STENNIS, Member 

Trustees of the California State University 15 

Background and Experience 15 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Student Fee Increases 16 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS on Student Fee 

Increases 18 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

What Board Is Doing to Reverse Trend of 

Student Fee Increases 20 

Help from Business Community 21 

Adopted Policy of Students Paying 

One-third Total Cost 21 

Visits with Students 22 



VI 



INDEX ( Continued 1 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

How to Pay for Education without Raising 

Student Fees 24 

Need for Recommendations to Legislature 

in Areas of Concern 24 

Witness with Concerns; 

STACEY GREEN, Chair 

California State Student Association 25 

Motion to Confirm 26 

Committee Action 26 

ROSIE B. GARCIA, Warden 

Centinela State Prison 27 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR HENRY MELLO .... 27 

Background and Experience 28 

Witnesses in Support: 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 31 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

CCPOA's Opposition 33 

Line Staff's Lack of Confidence in 

Nominee 33 

Sepember, 1994 Incidents: Inmate Killed 

and New Officer Slashed 35 

Lack of Thorough Search for Inmate Weapons . 36 

Questions to MS. GARCIA by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Allegation by CCPOA of Line Staff's Lack 

of Confidence 39 

Past Problems with CCPOA 39 

Lack of Sufficient Cooling Off Period after 

Stabbing Incident in September, 1994 39 



Vll 



INDEX (Continued^ 

Involvement of Slashing Inmate in Prior 

Incident 40 

Institutional Landscaping Vs. Retrofitting 

Doors 41 

Questions to MR. SEARCY by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Number of Members in CCWA 42 

Hispanic Workforce at Centinela 42 

CCWA Membership in CCPOA 42 

Imperial Chapter of CCWA 43 

Reason for CCPOA Opposing Confirmation 43 

HELEN LOPEZ , Chair 

Centinela Citizens Advisory Committee 44 

MORGAN SNYDER, 8th Grade Representative 

Simi Elementary School 47 

GENE BRISTER, Mayor 

City of El Centro 48 

ROY MABRY, State President 

California Association of Black Correctional Workers . 49 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Membership of CABCA 50 

Relationship to CCPOA 50 

LINDON LEWIS 

California Department of Corrections 51 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Disagreement with CCPOA ' s Position of 

Lack of Confidence by Personnel 54 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Current Rank or Rating 54 

Membership in CCPOA 55 



Vlll 



INDEX ( Continued 1 

MARK GRAN, Mayor 

City of Imperial '. . 55 

ANITA PEREZ, San Quent in Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 56 

RAY CASTILLO, President 

Imperial Chapter 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 58 

JIM GOMEZ, Director 

California Department of Corrections 60 

BILL CONDIT, President 

Board of Directors 

Imperial Irrigation District 62 

Witnesses in Opposition; 

DON NOVEY, State President 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association . . 62 

MIKE JIMENEZ, Executive Vice President 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association . . 64 

JEFF THOMPSON 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association . . 65 

ALBERT GERVIN, Chapter President 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association . . 67 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

List of 20 68 

Question by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Date of Incident 69 

Incident in Ad. Seg. Unit where New Officer 

Was Slashed by Inmate 69 

Argument that Probationary Staff Should Not 

Work Ad. Seg. Units 70 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: Putting Hearing 

Over until Thursday, January 12, 1995 70 

Termination of Proceedings 71 

Certificate of Reporter 72 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— OoOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our next item is, first, to deal 
with some of the holdover confirmations. We've had extensive 
interviews with some of the nominees or appointees in previous 
weeks, mostly last week. So, we need to come to a conclusion. 

First, Members, the first item is Mr. Bill Malkasian 
for the State Board of Education. 

Are there any thoughts or comments that Members would 
wish to make before proceeding to a vote on this matter? What 
is the pleasure of the Committee? Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I'll recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion recommending 
confirmation of Mr. Malkasian to the State Board of Education. 

I would only make this brief comment first, which is, 
I think both of the individuals being reappointed have 
demonstrated a desire to avoid the potential for confrontation 
and dispute between the State Board and the new Superintendent 
of Public Instruction. That attitude and approach is absolutely 
essential to educational progress in this state, and it's one of 
several considerations, but a weighty one in my own mind, and 
one of the reasons that I support their reconfirmation. 

Let's call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 



SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We might just quickly take up 
Gerti Thomas, Item Number Three, which is the second 
reappointment to the State Board of Education. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Same motion. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Same motion. Any comments from 
Members ? 

This is a constituent of Senator Petris, as we might 
note for the record. 

Call the roll, or would there be any objection to 
substituting the previous unanimous roll? All right, that'll be 
the order. 

[Thereupon the previous roll 
was substituted, and the 
confirmation was recommended 
with the vote of 5-0.] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Number Two, James T. Rude, a 
member of the Industrial Welfare Commission. 

Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to introduce 
this topic by making a very brief comment. 

I've been persuaded by those who testified against 
the confirmation last week that that would be the most 
appropriate course. Mr. Rude brings intelligence and energy to 



his assignment. However, I'm afraid that he may have lost sight 
of the basic purpose of the Industrial Welfare Commission. 

Even though he was an employer representative on the 
Commission, and I think that the employer community is entitled 
to active representation, it was my view that the duty that he 
had to provide for minimum wages and the general welfare of 
employees in California was lost as he became increasingly an 
employer advocate rather than a person with a duty to provide 
for the welfare of all employees in the state. 

There are numerous specific issues: the failure to 
adequately consider and review increases of the minimum wage; 
the 12-hour work day rules and other matters. 

Perhaps it would have worked, because, I'll note for 
the record that Don Novey is the other employee representative 
on that panel, and he has done a superb job, I think with the 
appropriate balance. 

My point is that if the public member had been 
appointed, it's been vacant for just about a year now, and 
absent the public member, it's a Commission that tends to just 
bifurcate into employer and employee representations with no 
glue to pull it together and effectuate a consensus. So, part 
of the problem here, part of Mr. Rude ' s problem, is that the 
Governor failed to appoint anyone for a year to the public 
member position. 

I am sure that the Governor will wish to use his many 
talents and abilities in some more appropriate setting. 

To my friends in the employer community, I don't wish 
to start the year on a discordant note, but feel that the job 



wasn ' t being done in the way that the law demands . 

Did any other Members of Rules wish to make any 
comments at all? Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I agree with much of what you said. 
I disagree with your conclusion because it is an employer 
representative . 

I would move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. Please call the 
roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala No. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris No. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer No. Three to two. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The matter will be held in the 
Rules Committee. 

I think we probably should jump to Item Numbers Four 
and Six, if we do them expeditiously, so that those folks don't 
have to wait quite as long. 

Robert Alleborn, if you'll come on up. Maybe you 
could start by helping me know how to pronounce your name . 

MR. ALLEBORN: Al-la-born. It's probably easier if 



you spelled it A-1-b-o-r-n. It's easier to pronounce it that 
way. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to begin with a brief 
statement of your own, sir? 

MR. ALLEBORN: I'll be happy to fill you in, but I 
think you probably have my information there. 

I'm from Orange County, California, a resident of 
Newport Beach. Born and raised in the State of California, and 
have, over the last several years, shown a great deal of 
interest in education and sit on a board of two other 
universities as advisory to the universities. 

And I'm happy to be here an answer any questions I 
can about myself in reference to my qualifications as a Board of 
Governors for the community college system for the State of 
California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, why don't we start with one 
that ' s always a favorite for us , and that ' s student fees . Any 
comments or observations with respect to the situation and the 
increases in student fees over the last few years? 

MR. ALLEBORN: Well, my feeling is, having attended 
many of the Board meetings over the last ten months of the 
community colleges, that we still have a deferred maintenance 
and capital improvement program that is dearly needed for the 
young adults going through our systems at the community college. 

And I feel that the fees are adequate at this point 
in time, and that if you were to reduce the fees, we might 
jeopardize any of this deferred maintenance, and capital 
improvements are needed for our young adults . 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you quantify, even if it's 
just an impression, how much of the potential revenue from fees 
would be dedicated to either deferred maintenance or new capital 
outlay? 

MR. ALLEBORN: I'm unable to answer that question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does the administration have a 
plan for that kind of expenditure? 

MR. ALLEBORN: There is a plan. It has been, as I 
mentioned earlier, deferred maintenance has been a serious 
situation for the community colleges, as well as the capital 
improvements, to be competitive for our young adults. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess, to maybe only be a little 
bit contentious , I understand we are the ones that enact the 
fee, not you. 

MR. ALLEBORN: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You may recommend it. 

We ' re told that the chief executive and others would 
wish to cut income and corporate taxes by, perhaps, as much as 
15 percent. 

I would only note that the Governor has raised taxes 
about two dozen times in the last four years . It would seem to 
me we ought to repeal some of the tax increases before we start 
cutting at the top. 

This is one of, at least in my view, the most onerous 
tax increases that we've enacted in the last four years. If we 
don't give all that money away to millionaires, sir, maybe we'll 
have some more of it for deferred maintenance and capital 
outlay, as you would wish. 



All I can suggest you do is help us persuade others 
that need persuasion about their priorities. 

MR. ALLEBORN: I'm not quite sure how to answer that 
question. It's difficult. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's all right. I was just sort 
of fishing, you know. 

MR. ALLEBORN: My basic concern is that we keep our 
buildings and plant equipment up to standards and we provide the 
capital improvements with the classroom equipment so we can 
educate young adults for the future of our state. And that's 
the primary reason that I'm here, trying to answer this 
question, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was the hardest decision you 
had to make during your tenure so far? 

MR. ALLEBORN: Probably the nominations for President 
of the Board of Governors, but that is behind us now, and we're 
unified and ready for this coming year, subject to — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, your kind of internal 
politics? 

MR. ALLEBORN: Well, that always occurs at times. 

I think also attempting to understand the system, 
which has been an experience itself. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's tricky in the sense that, 
here you are, a statewide group, that is essentially a local 
system with all the local community college districts. 

MR. ALLEBORN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And a kind of a tension between 
state and local that's pretty important. 



8 

MR. ALLEBORN: Yes, it is, because we try to set the 
policy, to pass the policy on to the local community college 
board of trustees . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do they seem generally amenable to 
your suggestions? 

MR. ALLEBORN: I think they have their independence, 
as they are by charter, but I think that there's a better line 
of communication, at least in my observation, since I was 
appointed to the Board, between the Board of Governors and the 
local trustees. There's more of a flow of information and more 
joint meetings in which we're very productive in the recent — 
in the last year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Some have thought that the Board 
of Governors sometimes can't resist the temptation to 
micro-manage the Chancellor's Office, since it's the most direct 
influence that you have. 

Is that a fair comment? 

MR. ALLEBORN: I think that's been a fair comment in 
the past, and I would say it would not be a fair comment in the 
future . 

I think we've done a lot in this last year to work 
better on the communication with the Chancellor between the 
Board of Governors, and that we would work more on policy and 
not micro-manage the system. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions from 
Members? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: The Chair has covered this. I 
wanted to touch on it a little more, the fee question. 



As he pointed out, we're the ones who ultimately have 
to approve it or disapprove, but I'm troubled by the shift in 
the responsibility from the general public in great measure now 
to the students throughout our system: community colleges, the 
U.C. system, and Cal . State. They've all been hit very hard 
with fee increases. 

In the case of the community colleges, it's meant — 
we don't have statistics or a very deep analysis — but the 
colleges have done some kind of study, or the administration, 
that indicates a drop of 155,600 students. Some of them quit 
because the fees went up, and others quit because courses were 
eliminated, and there ' re probably other reasons, too. 

I'd like to correct that. I'd like to see us reduce 
those fees and attract more students . 

I'm reminded of a comment made by Governor Pat Brown. 
I happened to be with him when he was visited by a large group 
of businessmen from around the state; there were about 100 or 
200. And he was asked what he felt his number one achievement 
was as Governor, and he said education. And they asked him to 
elaborate. And he said, "Well, at this moment that I'm speaking 
to you, 40 percent of the population of this state is in school, 
in the public schools." He said, "If we maintain the 
percentage, and hopefully increase it, the hopes for this state 
are very great in the future . " 

Now, I don't know what the percentage is now, but I'm 
sure it's taken quite a drop just with this one move. 

I bring that out to illustrate my agreement with his 
emphasis on encouraging as many of our people to be in school as 



10 

possible. Now, that 40 percent, I'm sure, included adult 
education, which was one of his pet projects, and, you know, 
night schools, and everything from kindergarten to the highest 
graduate level . 

And it seems to me that that ' s been our goal over the 
years, and we've lost sight of it because we caved in on this 
financial national recession and made a lot of sacrifices in the 
meantime . 

Is there any sentiment on your Board that you can 
detect for trying to turn that around? 

MR. ALLEBORN: I can't speak for the Board entirely, 
but I can speak for myself and the fact that I feel that at an 
appropriate time, things could possibly come down. But at the 
current time, I am concerned about deferred maintenance, and I 
am concerned about capital improvements so that our young adults 
can have the finest education for our state and for our country. 

I realize that the fees are a very small portion of 
the overall cost of running the colleges, but in balancing it 
correctly, every little dollar does count. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How many years behind are you on the 
deferred maintenance? 

MR. ALLEBORN: To my knowledge, about two years. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's not bad at all. I think the 
other systems are several years more than that. That doesn't 
give us much comfort. 

So, if you got a windfall of a large amount of money, 
would the Board put it first in deferred maintenance and capital 
outlay? 



11 

MR. ALLEBORN: I think that's for the Legislature to 
make that determination. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand that, but we usually 
look to you for recommendations also. 

MR. ALLEBORN: It would be my recommendation, as a 
voting member of the Board, to put it towards deferred 
maintenance and capital improvements . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thanks. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: What is the relationship between your 
governing Board and the so many local boards that govern 
community colleges? 

MR. ALLEBORN: We're a policy setting board. 

SENATOR AYALA: You set policy. 

MR. ALLEBORN: Policy setting board for the community 
college system for the state. 

Each of the local trustees have their own respective 
colleges to manage and run. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is your policy binding on local 
community colleges? 

MR. ALLEBORN: It is not binding. 

SENATOR AYALA: What purpose does the Board serve if 
they're not binding on local college boards? What is your 
function? 

MR. ALLEBORN: Maybe I might defer that question to 
Dr. Mertes, since I'm new on the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You see, he's learned to defer to 
the staff. That's a good start. 



12 

[Laughter. ] 

DR. MERTES: Senators, do I get confirmed if the 
answer's the appropriate one? 

[Laughter. ] 

DR. MERTES: Senator Ayala, yes, the Board policy, 
there are different levels. Some are set by the Legislature, 
and we implement . There are some that are delegated to the 
Board that we put into statute locally, our own policies. That 
is also binding on the boards or on local districts . There are 
some that are guidelines. Those are voluntary on behalf of the 
local jurisdictions, so it is a mixture. 

SENATOR AYALA: The tuition, again, that is directed 
from the Legislature? 

DR. MERTES: Yes. The Legislature sets the total 
tuition that we ■ re permitted to levy on students . 

You can also put around that that the dollars be used 
for specific purposes: for capital outlay; for instructional 
equipment. And that is binding on all of the districts that are 
community college districts now. 

SENATOR AYALA: What about additional fees for 
parking and health benefits, whether they're needed or not? You 
charge the students anyway. Is that at the local level? 

DR. MERTES: Yes. What the Legislature has 
authorized as permissive fee, and which, for example, with 
parking, you can go up to a certain level, but you can't exceed 
that level. The same is true with the health fee. There is 
also a permissive supply fee. 

And the local boards of trustees, by vote, set the 



13 

level of the parking fee, the health fee, and the policy for 
supplies fees. 

SENATOR AYALA: At the local level, they implement 
that fee schedule. 

DR. MERTES: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: And they can charge a fee to a 
student, whether that student uses that service or not? 

DR. MERTES: In terms of parking, that is correct. 

In terms of health fee, it's mandatory in terms of 
the health fee. 

There is discretion at the local level as to how 
that ' s implemented . 

SENATOR AYALA: The students, or the residents, 
declare that they go to a certain district community college. 
They can transfer from one district to another if both districts 
agree on that? 

DR. MERTES: At the present time, there is free flow 
throughout the state, and so students can go to any community 
college in the state that they want to. 

SENATOR AYALA: Any community college you want in the 
state? 

DR. MERTES: That's correct. In previous times, 
there were restrictions . You could only go to the college in 
your district. That has been eliminated and there's total free 
flow. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I had the first bill on it. It's 
wide open since then. 

DR. MERTES: I'm sorry, sir? 



14 

SENATOR BEVERLY: That free flow policy is basically- 
wide open now. 

DR. MERTES: Yes, it is. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: My bill limited free flow, as I 
remember it . 

DR. MERTES: Yes, it's totally open now. 

SENATOR AYALA: That includes athletes? 

DR. MERTES: Athletes are a little bit different. 
There are restrictions around recruitment of athletes, and that 
is an exception to the general statement that I just made. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

Is there anyone present who would wish to comment at 
all or oppose? 

What is the pleasure of the Committee? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Lewis 
to confirm this fellow, also from Orange County. 

Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 



15 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm a little bit torn. I don't 
know quite what to do . 

We have two more confirmations to hear today, and 
there's a lot of business, which is clearly not going to get 
completed by 4:30, which is when we're expected to report 
because of the State of the State Address that ' s happening this 
afternoon at 5:00. 

I believe Mr. Stennis would probably be fairly brief, 
but I'm worried bout the fact that there's a lot of testimony 
with respect to Warden Garcia. I'll gamble and see if we can do 
both. 

Mr. Stennis, why don't you come on up. This is Item 
Number Six in your file, Members. 

MR. STENNIS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good afternoon, sir. 

Did you want to start with any preliminary comment? 

MR. STENNIS: Well, first of all, I'll keep it brief. 
First of all, I'm glad for the opportunity to come here in front 
of your committee. 

I ' ve been on the CSU Board for about a year now . The 
two main reasons that I wanted to be and enjoy being on this 
Board, one reason is my father was a Trustee for 16 years. He 
was appointed by Jerry Brown, and he was then reappointed by 
Deukmejian. And I guess I'm the only heir Trustee, or second 
generation Trustee. He passed away a year ago, but everytime I 
sit in those chairs in Long Beach, he's up there, smiling down. 



16 

And now Claudia Hampton's with him, and I see him doing this to 
me. 

The other reason, which is real important, is that 
being a small businessman in South Central Los Angeles, being 
African-American, I see my community slowly but surely 
deteriorating. I see my people, my young males and females, and 
the people that are coming into the community, I see that the 
look on their faces is a look of hopelessness. 

And I know, I know, that basically the only 
opportunity that we have as a people and as a community to move 
forward, to grow, to make the inner cities better, is through 
education. And if they don't have an opportunity to attend 
college, and the CSU system is the best opportunity, as well as 
the community college system, for them to attend a college. And 
whether they're there for four years, if they're there for a 
year, the knowledge and the experience that they gain, and they 
go back to the community, it spreads. 

And that's the only way we're going to get better. 
That's the only way the overall pyramid is going to get better. 
Education is the only way. 

That's cutting everything as brief as I can. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's appropriate. 

Let me ask if there are questions from Members? 

I'll begin with the student fee question, just to try 
to understand your perspective. Now, I note that you cast a 
vote very early, probably your first meeting, maybe — 

MR. STENNIS: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — where the President had 



17 

suggested a 10 percent fee increase this year. 

I'm distressed by that. I'll just tell you that as I 
look at the numbers, the general fund support for the university 
in the last four years declined 3.3 percent, a total of $53 
million. 

Student fee revenue is 400 percent, that is four 
times the amount. It increased 58 percent, about 211. 

So, student fees didn't just make up for the cut in 
general fund. They became a source of new revenues, and of 
course, the fees doubled. 

My personal view is, we can't continue down that 
path, and we have to figure out ways to economize without just 
continually relying on fees. 

But that's the speech from this side of the table. I 
would welcome any thoughts or comments you have about the 
situation our university's in. 

MR. STENNIS: Well, being brief again, I'm against 
students fees because those higher fees are exactly affecting 
the people that I think most need the opportunity to go to 
college. 

Being a new Trustee and new Board member, the one 
thing that I plan to do is try to give as much influence as I 
can, coming from the inner city, coming from the bottom, to try 
to change this continued fee increase. 

I mean, if you raise it 10 percent, next year it's 
15, next year it's 16, next year it's 20 because it's done. 

So, I plan to work as hard as I can with the 
resources that I have, and the knowledge that I have, to try to, 



18 

you know, turn that around as best as I can. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I think we would all 
encourage you. 

The pattern, you're right. A 20 percent increase, 
then a 40 percent, then a 10, then a 10, and on and on. 

MR. STENNIS: It just keeps going. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

Other inquiries? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm in full accord with the Chair's 
views. I just want to reinforce it from my position. 

When we first imposed fees a few years ago, the 
example of the State of Oregon was used as one university system 
that imposed fees. But that had been several years before, and 
I pointed out at the time in opposing fee increases for 
students , that the pattern we get into is the one you pointed 
out. Once you open that door for student reliance on the fees, 
we just naturally turn to it, and it goes from a small 
percentage to a larger one, and pretty soon it becomes enormous. 

My position is, we never should have gone that way in 
the first place. The history of this state has been one of 
limiting the charges to students as much as possible and make 
them as low as possible. 

The great U.C. system; I think one of its reasons for 
being great was not just the faculty, but the variety, and the 
scope, and the economic sector of the students that it's been 
able to attract over a period of many years . 

I think in the last three or four years, we've seen a 
reversal of that. Now we might as well privatize it. It's 



19 

about $4,000 a year at U.C., and Cal . State is fast catching up. 

Now, I think your observations are very accurate. 
The question is, what can you do about it, or are you willing to 
do? 

Let me just suggest. I've said this to other Board 
members. I don't know how well it works. 

First of all, you're appointed by the Governor, and 
that's quite an honor, to have the confidence of the governor in 
a state this big. It means you've really done something to 
deserve it . 

I would urge you to keep communicating with the 
Governor. I don't know how much he hears from people who say, 
"Find the money some how. Don't raise the fees." 

So, we need help as a legislative body from the state 
boards and all the institutions to try to persuade the Governor 
to stop increasing these taxes on students. 

It means an alternative source; maybe it means 
taxes. But we shouldn't be so horrified about the mention — 
some of them are so bad, they won't even use the name. It's the 
"t" word. That's a lot of nonsense. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes said, you know, he's happy to 
pay taxes; it's the price of civilization. 

I guess we don't like the civilization any more, so 
the common theme now is, don't raise taxes, ever, and cut the 
ones we have . 

Now, the Governor's proposing an across-the-board tax 
cut, I understand, 15 percent. I don't know if that was in his 
inaugural message; we might find out later today. 



20 

I don't know how we can do that at a time when we're 
dumping so much of the burden on the students . We should be 
increasing rather than decreasing it. 

I know there is a school that says, when you cut 
taxes, you bring in more money. Sometimes that works; sometimes 
it doesn't. I'm not willing to gamble. 

Can you tell me what you and the Board are doing, or 
can do, to reverse this trend? 

MR. STENNIS: Well, basically, you know, giving the 
Governor a tin ear; saying, you know, we can't. We have to face 
the student representatives at our Board meeting. We have to 
face the students when I go to the campuses . 

I think that the most important thing that I feel 
might help along those lines is for the Trustees and the 
students and the universities to get together, but as a unit, 
saying: listen, we can't afford to continue to raise fees. As 
a unit. And, you know, strength in numbers. 

We haven't tried it. Let's try it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What are the prospects of trying it? 

MR. STENNIS: Well, if I'm confirmed, I'm going to 
fight as hard as I can to try to get that done. I know that I 
can't do everything, but I think if I can attach two or three 
important issues to me, and fight for it, maybe I can get 
something done. 

I know that the people that are affected the most by 
fee increases are the people that look like me. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How about the business community? 
You're president of a successful operation. Can you get some 



21 

help from the general business community? 

I think the bigger companies have shown a lot of 
support. A lot of them have adopted individual high schools, 
for example. The Business Roundtable came in with an excellent 
report on the need for supporting public education, but it needs 
to be a continuing thing called to the attention of the 
Governor. Since he has a lot of friends in the leadership of 
the business community, I would think an approach might be made 
from that sector as well . 

Do you agree with that? 

MR. STENNIS: Yes, it ' s a very good idea. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you work on that, too? 

MR. STENNIS: Sure, sure. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Good, I'll make notes. 

MR. STENNIS: Give me some names. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The policy adopted by the Board that 
the students should pay one-third of the total cost, and the 
taxpayers pay the rest, that's never been adopted by the 
Legislature. There' ve been suggestions, but we've never gone 
for that. 

That puts us in the same risk as the problem you 
mentioned earlier, that once you establish it, why a third? 
Times are tough. Why don't we go to two-thirds eventually? I 
see that as a big risk. 

Are you in favor of that policy? I've heard 
proposals made in public of going to 50 percent in some of our 
institutions . 

MR. STENNIS: Well, yes. I think that to set a 



22 

percentage for someone's education, that fact is, for that 
percentage to grow is so easy, you know? It's so easy, as you 
say. 

So, no, I don't necessarily agree with that 
one-third. I don't know how they came up with the one-third, me 
being a new Board member. But I know that when my father was a 
Trustee, it wasn't one-third. It was a lot less. 

And as you say, I think we need to look at other 
avenues as far as funding the colleges. I think we're all aware 
of that as Trustees. 

I also feel that with a joint effort between the 
Trustees, and the presidents, and the students, we could try to, 
you know, enforce the fact that we want to try to keep the fees 
as low as possible, not going up, and go to other areas. If we 
can have the private sector fund art centers, and things like 
that, why can't some of the private sector fund some of the 
education of these students? It's only going to benefit the 
businesses in the private sector in the area where the school is 
going to flourish. 

SENATOR PETRIS: A lot of them are doing it. They're 
doing it in my district, and I really admire them. There's a 
lot of leaders in the business community who have stepped up to 
the plate. 

I think that it might be more effective if they work 
more on the Governor . He ' s the one that makes the budget that ' s 
presented to us . We'd get results a lot faster than some small 
contributions, individually, to one school district or another. 

You get to visit much with students? Do you get much 



23 



chance to do that? 

MR. STENNIS: Yes, I do. Not to take this — I'm on 
a few mentor programs that deal with high school seniors that 
are going to college. I try, as often as I can, to go to the 
schools that are in my area: Long Beach, Dominguez, Cal . State 
L.A., San Diego State when I get down in San Diego. 

The one thing that I try to stress to the students is 
that they have to participate. You can't just start screaming 
when they get ready to raise student fees . You have to 
anticipate what's going on with your student government. You 
have to anticipate what's going on with the budget. You have to 
keep your head up and understand what ' s happening to your 
education in your university, and don't wait 'til it's too late. 

You know, by the time the Governor makes his budget 
and sets it, there's not a whole lot that can be done by either 
one of us. But if we can get the students to be more involved, 
as we are involved, with their education and their colleges, you 
know, the transitional student, be it they have to drive back 
and forth, they still have to be involved. And if we get more 
involvement, things can only get better. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Stennis , the student fees have 
risen more than half since 1990. I haven't heard anyone say 
that they support increasing student fees. If not, what then? 
What do we do then? We're short of funds. Eliminate classes? 
Eliminate the faculty members? 

If we're not going to raise the fees, what are we 



24 

going to do to keep up with the cost of education? 

MR. STENNIS: Weil, some of the things that we 
discussed are ideas. 

I think what we have to do, seeing as that this 
student fee increase is becoming a very popular topic, I think 
as a Board, as Trustees, and the Chancellor, and the presidents, 
I think we all need to sit down as a group, and with the 
community colleges governors, and come up with plans to address 
these areas . 

SENATOR AYALA: In four years that started. When are 
we going to do that? 

I understand what you're saying. Should we be 
providing jobs for the students to pay for the higher cost of 
going to school? 

There's no more free lunches, you know. So, 
shouldn't your Board be more involved and up front with what we 
ought to be doing, and recommend to the Legislature areas of 
concern that you have, and how we should resolve them? 

MR. STENNIS: You're right, Senator. We need to do 
that. We need to spend more time on the problem solving of fees 
and trying to make the university and the colleges better. 

We need to look for the future and not just for next 
year. 

SENATOR AYALA: When are we going to start? 

MR. STENNIS: Well, if I get on the Board — 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. STENNIS: Listen, I just — I'm starting to fight 
now. I called George Foreman, and I got some boxing gloves. 



25 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 

Is there anyone present who would wish to make a 
comment? 

MS. GREEN: My name is Stacey Green. I'm the Chair 
of the California State Student Association. 

And while the Board has not officially taken a 
position in support or against Trustee Stennis, we would like to 
thank you for addressing some of the very tough questions that 
you've put out there. Those are many of the questions that we 
raise with the Trustees on a consistent basis. 

And also, we'd like to encourage and express to you 
that it ' s very important any Trustees who are confirmed through 
this process be innovative leaders, people who are willing to 
take a chance to dissent from time to time when it's necessary, 
and especially to work in the interests of those of us who are 
on the cusp and on our way out of the CSU. 

As you know, we've lost over 20,000 students in the 
last four years . And the commitment to retention programs and 
to educational equity programs has more recently moved to the 
chopping block. So, it's very important to us that Trustees 
have strategy, and have long-term goals that will not continue 
to diminish the quality of our experience in the CSU, but also 
push us out of the CSU entirely. 

And we are here to thank you for an opportunity 
address you, and we appreciate you raising the questions that we 
submitted to the Committee. We'd like to continue to 
participate in the process every step of the way. 

Thank you. 



26 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone else? Senator. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Are you supporting Mr. Stennis? 

MS. GREEN: We're supporting any Trustees who are 
willing to take those steps that I put forward to you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I take that as affirmative. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, there are probably numerous 
other things we could ask about — the tension between teaching 
and research, and so on and so forth — but I think we have a 
clear sense of your enthusiasm for the job and many talents and 
abilities . 

Let me ask the Committee if you're prepared to vote 
on this matter? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. Call the roll, 



please. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Congratulations. 



27 

MR. STENNIS: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck. 

MR. STENNIS: I'll need it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Item Number Five, Warden Garcia, 
and we'll start with Senator Mello. 

SENATOR MELLO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
Members . 

I ' m honored to be here today to introduce and urge a 
few words of support for a woman who ' s before you for 
confirmation of the Warden of Centinela Prison down in Imperial. 

She is a product of the Salinas Valley in Monterey 
County, where she started her career in the Soledad institution. 
In fact, her being here today could really represent a story 
book record of achievement for someone who came out of the 
fields with her family, had a difficult early life. But through 
her commitment for hard work, she has really done an 
exceptionally great job, in my opinion. 

I worked with her and first met her when I got 
elected to the Assembly, when she was an officer at Soledad. 
And there, working, she's helped a lot of the vocational 
programs and academic programs to try to keep people out of 
prison once they're released. 

Of course, being in an institution that handles 
Levels III and IV inmates like her present prison does is no 
easy task, and certainly is not without controversy. 

When she left Soledad, she went to San Quentin. From 
there, she went to the California Rehabilitation Center at 
Norco, then to Pelican Bay State Prison up in Northern 



28 

California, the Sierra Conservation Center, and finally down at 
Centinela State Prison. 

The last point I want to make, I think her 
appointment to this position represented the first woman to be 
appointed warden who has come up through the ranks of our 
correctional system and not being brought in from the outside. 
She's worked her way up to the position that now she aspires to. 

She's highly qualified. She's tough, but she's 
compassionate to the point, willing to try to work on programs 
that work. And I just have a great deal of respect for her. 

I hope the Committee will confirm her to this 
position and send it to the Floor with that recommendation. 

So, I'd like to present now Rosie Garcia, and tell 
the Committee how much I respect the work she ' s done throughout 
the State of California. 

MS. GARCIA: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Senator Mello. I know 
you have other responsibilities. You don't have to stay, but we 
appreciate your introduction. 

Warden, did you want to begin with any opening 
comment? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, thank you. 

Senator Lockyer and distinguished panel members, I'm 
a 50-year-old divorced Hispanic woman who has raised four 
beautiful children. I also have eight grandchildren and one on 
the way any day now. 

I started working in the fields of the Salinas Valley 
when I was approximately four years old. Am I sorry? Most 



29 

definitely not. Why? because way back then, I learned good 
work ethics . My father believed in us being the first ones on 
the job, before sun-up, and the last ones to leave after sunset. 
He also believed that we work the entire time that we were out 
there . 

After leaving home, I married and remained in an 
abusive relationship for approximately 13 years. However, at 
the age of 32, I was able to leave my husband and be on my own 
for the first time in my life. All I had were my four children, 
my self-esteem, my peace of mind, and my will to make it. I had 
no money and no job and didn't believe in accepting welfare. 

My children and I suffered some hard times for a 
while, but in February of 1977, I was hired by the California 
Department of Corrections under the SETA program at the 
Correctional and Training Facility at CTF Soledad as an 
assistant to an Associate Warden. 

In June of 1977, I became a correctional officer at 
CTF. This was during some of the toughest times in our 
Department's history. I was the first woman to work the 
security squad at CTF. I was also the first woman to be on the 
special emergency response team and was a sniper on that team. 
By that time, I was a grandmother. 

Over the past 17 years with the Department, I have 
had the unique opportunity to work at CTF Soledad, San Quentin, 
the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, Pelican Bay State 
Prison, Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, and now 
Centinela State Prison. 

I have had the good fortune to obtain experience 



30 

working in classifications of: office assistant, correctional 
officer, sergeant, lieutenant, program administrator, associate 
warden, chief deputy warden, and now Warden at Centinela State 
Prison. 

I have worked with men and women inmates from one end 
of the state to the other, at all levels, ranging from minimum 
count to the worst of the worst. My career includes having been 
responsible for activating the Security Housing Unit at Pelican 
Bay State Prison, which is the most secure unit in the State of 
California and the only one of its kind. 

I would like to close the outline of my 
qualifications with this. Normally, a new prison manager is 
named in place 14 months before the prison activates. Staff 
started arriving 12 months out. As a new prison manager of 
Centinela State Prison, I assumed my position six months prior 
to the activation, and my staff started arriving approximately 
four months prior to the activation of Centinela. The prison 
activated on October the 1st, 1993, and now, only 15 months 
later, is at 190 percent capacity. 

Centinela State Prison currently houses Level III and 
IV inmates, a U.S. INS Unit, a minimum unit. We have three 
vocational programs, sixteen academic programs geared towards 
literacy training, a pre-release or GED program, a computer 
literacy lab in its first phase, the American Program, and we're 
in the process of implementing our self-help groups at this 
time. 

We also have a joint San Diego State University 
program for student teachers to intern in the facility in 



31 

preparation to enter the correctional educational program. 

How did all this happen? It happened because of the 
commitment and dedication of the staff at Centinela State 
Prison. 

Finally, I am the first woman in the history of the 
California Department of Corrections to activate a new design, 
Level III and Level IV, men's prison in an area that is at least 
a two-hour drive to the closest metropolitan area. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

I know there are numerous people that wish to speak 
in support and at least opposition, perhaps, from a number of 
members of CCPOA. My guess is that the list, the one I saw 
until this morning was 20 specific examples of concern. I guess 
it's expanded since then, but we haven't had quite enough 
opportunity to absorb all of that new addendum. That will 
probably be the more constructive discussion to help us get 
beyond the sort of general nice comments and into real meaty 
issues . 

But I do think it ' s appropriate that we ask the 
support side to come forward initially. I don't know if you've 
organized yourselves in terms of who would start off. 

Senator Beverly, if I could give you the gavel for a 
few minutes . 

SENATOR BEVERLY: All right, sir, you're first. 

MR. SEARCY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Senator 
Rules Committee Members . 

My name is Frank R. Searcy. I am the President of 
the Chicano Correctional Workers Association. 



32 

I'm here today in behalf of the Association which 
highly supports the confirmation of Ms. Garcia as Warden of 
Centinela State Prison. 

Some of my comments have already been addressed. 
Nevertheless, I'm going to ask you to be patient with me while I 
make my comments . 

A few years ago, Ms. Garcia began her correctional 
career in the clerical field. Soon after, she made a decision 
to enhance her career by going into the custody service of the 
Department . 

Ms. Garcia, in a very rapid and timely manner, took 
advantage of promotional opportunities. She has experienced the 
entry level of correctional officer, custody supervisor, 
managerial level responsibilities. For some of us, that would 
have been a satisfying accomplishment, but not for Ms. Garcia. 
She has continued on her quest into the administration level . 

While in other administrative positions, as in her 
present position as Warden at Centinela, Ms. Garcia has very 
effectively and consistently dispensed her administrative 
duties. As any supervisor, manager, or administrator will 
attest, at times it is necessary to render decisions that are 
not popular to some person or persons. Again, Ms. Garcia has 
always shown that careful thought and consideration is a vehicle 
used in reaching the appropriate decision. 

It is obvious, early in her life, Ms. Garcia learned 
that to reach a goal, a person has to work hard. Also, a person 
has to have a certain amount of commitment and dedication to the 
organization. Ms. Garcia has consistently shown those 



33 

attributes . She has been a role model to many Department of 
Corrections employees. Ms. Garcia has been a true asset to the 
State of California and the Department of Corrections. 

In conclusion, the Chicano Correctional Workers 
Association strongly requests your individual endorsement for 
Ms. Garcia as the Warden of Centinela State Prison. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you very much. 

Any questions? Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm very puzzled here. Your group 
always appears, or quite often, when the wardens are being 
recommended by the Governor for appointment. 

Your testimony seems to be in direct conflict with 
the CCPOA. Are your members also members of the CCPOA? 

MR. SEARCY: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, we have a letter here from 
them, from their representative, that I think some of the points 
here should be answered. I'm sure that the nominee can answer 
them, but I'd like to get your comment. 

Their opposition is based on a long history, not just 
one or two assignments. Number one, they say that she's never 
earned the confidence of line staff. It's occurred in every 
institution where she's operated in upper management capacity. 

That's a very serious indictment: never earned the 
confidence of line staff. 

Can you comment on that? Is that a blatantly false 
statement, or is — 

MR. SEARCY: I believe it is, because I think that's 



34 

more of a matter of a personal opinion. 

I have known of employees or staff that, under her 
administration and they have been under her supervision, that 
have responded in an appropriate manner to her supervision 
managers . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I don't think we can move it 
out on the basis of personal opinion. All the testimony here is 
personal opinion based on, you know, your own direct observation 
and so forth, as well as the others. 

All right, the second point is a safe and secure 
prison facility is the ultimate responsibility of a warden. 
They claim that she's had a pattern of poor judgment. 

I'm doing this to ask you to comment and also prepare 
you for your answer when you testify later, okay? 

Extremely serious incident in the Security Housing 
Unit in September, 1994. A serious fight with weapons broke out 
between six Hispanic inmates and one black inmate. A Hispanic 
inmate was shot and killed by an officer responding to the 
attack. The normal prison policy, they claim, is to have people 
cool off and not resume the normal activities for a while, maybe 
a day, two days, whatever the period is. 

This claim is that regular inmate program was resumed 
the very next day, which they claim is highly unusual, and then 
retaliation. Some Hispanic inmates attacked and slashed the 
face of a new officer from the right eye down to the jaw line. 
The CCPOA had previously argued against new and inexperienced 
officers manning that particular unit. 

They claim that Ms. Garcia ignored the need to cool 



35 

down the institution and investigate potentials for retaliation. 

Do you have any comment on that? Are you familiar 
with that incident? 

MR. SEARCY: No, I'm not, Senator. And really, for 
me to respond to any particular incident or situation is, I 
think, would be inappropriate because I'm not familiar with that 
situation. 

I think all I can say, really, is that administration 
at times will do things that possibly, like I mentioned earlier, 
they'll make a decision that is not popular to a certain person 
or certain persons . I have seen that many times . 

However, a line staff member may not have the 
information that the administration has. And so, it's very 
possible that, based on the information that administration has, 
this is why they make and take whatever action that they take. 

Now, I'd also like to mention, there's going to be 
times when you're going to make some decision that may not be 
popular with someone. I have seen that throughout my career, 
and I have questioned. But then, in the end, again we come back 
to the administrator, administration, makes a decision based on 
the information that they have . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'm not viewing this as a popularity 
contest. It is a serious thing. An officer was injured, and 
there were other serious problems which they feel could have 
been prevented by following the traditional policy. 

There's another incident relating to north-south 
Mexican criminal gangs in which two individuals were stabbed. 
Ms. Garcia would not permit more than a cursory one-hour search 



36 

for weapons in areas that included housing units and an entire 
yard. Even the watch lieutenant had requested a much more 
extensive search but was denied. The inmate programs resumed 
immediately. 

From your knowledge of prison policy, assuming these 
statements are true, should there be a more extensive search or 
not? 

MR. SEARCY: Again, Senator, it's really difficult 
to, without having the information, shall we say, of being there 
and having that person in there and witnessing that situation, 
it's really difficult at this point to be able to say that 
whatever action was taken was appropriate or inappropriate. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Since this involved Hispanic 
persons, I would think that it would come to your attention as 
an officer of your organization. I guess it hasn't. 

MR. SEARCY: Not necessarily, Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well — 

MS. GARCIA: May I respond to that? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, I'm going to ask you also. 

I just assume when you come in to testify, you have 
a pretty good knowledge of the person's record and events that 
happen . 

You know, in a court of law, the questioning is a 
little different. I mean, if you came into court and testified 
that she was an excellent driver, and I'm asking you, "Are you 
sure she's an excellent driver?" 

"Oh, yeah. I've been in the car with her several 
times. She's a very good driver." 



37 

"Well, would you have the same opinion if I informed 
you that, according to police records, she has run red lights 
and clobbered people in the middle of the intersection without 
regard to their safety on three separate occasions? Now, do you 
still think she ' s an excellent driver? " 

Your answer would probably have to be, "Well, I 
didn't know that stuff. The answer obviously is no, that's not 
the act of an excellent driver. " 

So now I'm giving you facts reported by other 
employees that have not come to your attention, and I'm asking: 
that doesn't change your opinion at all? Because of the 
circumstances that you described, it depends on what information 
the administration receives . 

MR. SEARCY: Senator, an administrator has to make 
certain decisions. And at times, again, they may be unpopular, 
but that administrator's going to make those decisions. 

Now, yes, I may not be privilege to some amount of 
information. However, also something that can be considered and 
looked at, if she would have had a lack of knowledge to properly 
dispense with administrative duties, I think her career would 
have stopped then or a long time ago. I don't see how the 
administration of the Department would have allowed her to 
continue, and even up to this point, to advance to this point of 
warden at a prison, and not only a warden at a prison, but a 
warden to open up a prison, which is a little bit different than 
to go into a prison that's already established. Because, a 
prison that is being opened, that is like a fish bowl, and 
you're on the inside. So, that warden's on the inside. 



38 

And the moment that warden breathes a little bit 
different, oh, oh, look what the warden is doing. It's a fish 
bowl. It's a little bit different than an already established 
institution. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I guess you're saying it's a lot 
more difficult. 

MR. SEARCY: Extremely. 

And yet, she has been able to withstand the problems 
She's dealt with them. I don't know of any warden opening up a 
new prison is not going to encounter likewise problems . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, at the proper time, I'd like to have 
Ms. Garcia respond to these so I don't have to repeat them. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Maybe it would be most appropriate 
now, while the issue's before us. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

Would you like to comment on the points that I 
raised that are out of this letter? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, but you'll have to refresh my 
memory a little bit. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'll have to refresh mine, too. 
Let's take a look. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Have you seen this letter? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, I have. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The first one is that you've never 
— the allegation. I'm not alleging this. 

MS. GARCIA: Right. 

SENATOR PETRIS: The allegation is that you've never 



39 

earned the confidence of the line staff, and that's been true at 
every level in the institution where you've advanced. 

That does seem to contradict the very notion of 
advancement; doesn't it? But anyway, this has occurred in each 
institution where you have operated in an upper management 
capacity. 

Can you answer that? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, I don't believe that to be true. 

I do have a lot of supporters. I have instilled 
leadership in a lot of staff in all institutions at all levels. 

And just like Mr. Searcy said, I don't believe that I 
would have gotten this far had I not been a fair manager and 
instilled some support from the staff. I have never known there 
to be a lack of confidence. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Have you had problems over the years 
with this particular organization? Have they been meeting with 
you to complain about your style of operation? 

MS. GARCIA: They have met with me. My first 
encounter of any of this type of negative was at Sierra 
Conservation Center. Prior to that I had none. 

SENATOR PETRIS: When were you at Sierra? 

MS. GARCIA: I was at Sierra between 1991 and I 
believe it was March of '93. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Can you refer back to September of 
last year on this fight that broke out where one inmate was 
killed? A specific complaint there is that you didn't arrange 
for enough cooling off period, but had the normal activities of 
the prison continue as if nothing had happened. 



40 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, that was at the Administrative 
Segregation Unit. The Administrative Segregation Unit, the only 
program that we have there is yard. The shooting of that inmate 
and the death of that inmate happened — occurred in that yard. 

There were no yards put out as a result of that 
incident after that for a while. 

The slashing occurred on the next day, when an inmate 
was being showered. The showering occurs one inmate at a time. 
It's not like you have a lot of inmates out of the tier, 
programming or whatever. It's a restricted housing unit where 
one inmate is taken from a cell and taken to the shower area by 
two officers. And we also have a control booth officer with 
weapons observing this movement of this inmate. 

The inmate was in the shower. The officer was new. 
He was called to the shower area by the inmate and asked, I 
believe, to pick up something, or brought his attention to the 
ground floor. And as he bent over, he was slashed by the 
inmate . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was he the one that was involved in 
the prior incident? 

MS. GARCIA: No. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Another point they described is 
about a defect in the prison cell doors in a maximum security 
area. It went ignored for months. I guess maybe there wasn't 
enough money to fix it. They wanted you to retrofit the doors 
according to CDC policy, and that was delayed, rejected and 
delayed for a long time, but in the meantime, the landscape 
projects were approved in front of the administration building. 



41 

So, the claim is, it's a terrible disparity that 
damages the morale and feeling of safety of the officers when 
they see money spent on landscaping but not on improving their 
safety on the doors . 

Do you remember that? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, I do. 

The money that ' s spent on landscaping is money that 
is just for the landscaping of the prison. It's agency retained 
funds. When the prison is funded, so many funds go to the 
landscaping. 

I did put out a letter to all staff, and I also had 
it published in the in-service training calendar that all staff 
get on a monthly basis, explaining the landscaping of the 
institution and where the funds were coming from. I cannot 
utilize those funds for salaries or wages, or equipment, or 
anything else other than landscaping. And that was related to 
the union. 

SENATOR PETRIS: They complained to you personally 
about that? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, they came and asked me about it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And did you explain it? I imagine 
they should have known that anyway, about the budget stuff. 
They usually watch the budget pretty closely. That's why they 
get such good pay compared to everybody else in law enforcement. 

So , I imagine you reminded them that you don ' t have 
control over that, and yet they put it in the letter. They're 
blaming you for it. 

Do you think that's an unfair charge? 



42 



MS. GARCIA: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Blaming you for spending money on 
landscaping and not retrofitting the doors. 

MS. GARCIA: I feel it's unfair and that I have no 
control over that money. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How about the money for the doors? 

MS. GARCIA: I don't have the money for the doors, 
sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, I think all the correctional 
officers are going to have to vote for a tax increase, just like 
I said for the educator a while ago. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, there's some more things, but 
I've taken enough time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Senator Lewis for a question. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Searcy, could you tell me how 
many members there are in the Chicano Correctional Workers 
Association. 

MR. SEARCY: Two thousand, approximately, and maybe 
one or two hundred more. It runs about two thousand. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How many members, what percentage of 
the workforce would you say are Hispanic at the Centinela State 
Prison? 

MR. SEARCY: At Centinela State Prison, I think we 
have about — just about 80 or 90 members. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is there 100 percent overlapping 
membership between your membership and membership in the CCPOA? 

MR. SEARCY: It probably would be. It most likely 



43 

is. Everybody is a member of CCPOA also. 

Let me clarify something. When you asked me about 
the membership at Centinela, those members are not necessarily 
all Hispanic. They may be some of other ethnics also. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Do you know how large your Imperial 
Chapter is? 

MR. SEARCY: Approximately 90. 

SENATOR LEWIS: And in your letter, you claim that 
there's unanimous support for Warden Garcia? 

MR. SEARCY: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Warden Garcia, I'm relatively new to 
this Committee, but I've been told that it's a fairly rare 
occurrence that the CCPOA opposes a warden in a confirmation 
process . 

I'm curious. We've been given this list of 20 
complaints that they have. I've had a chance to look at those. 
I ' ve had a chance to look at your responses . 

But I'm curious. Is there some reason that you can 
point to that you believe that CCPOA is so vigorously opposing 
your nomination? 

MS. GARCIA: I wish I could, sir. I don't know. If 
I could, I would like to remedy it, but I have no idea. 

MR. SEARCY: Senator, if I may make a comment on 
that, as the other Committee Members, I think, can inform you, 
there ' s been other wardens that have been in these hearings for 
confirmation, and CCPOA also has opposed. And it's just a 
coincidence that they have been Hispanic also. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Any further questions? 



44 

SENATOR LEWIS: That's all I have. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Next witness, please. 

MR. SEARCY: One more, Senator Beverly, if I may. 

Senator Petris and the rest of the Committee Members, 
I want to go back and address a little bit the issue of the 
staff, the staff under her administration, and having good 
contact with her. 

Let me give you about a one-second history of our 
Association; not the history, but the make-up of it. 

Membership is open to any employee in the Department 
of Corrections, to any employee of the State of California, to 
any citizen who wishes to help us pursue our goals and mission. 
In that, we also have administration that is part of our 
membership. 

Ms. Garcia, when she went to Pelican Bay, we did not 
have a chapter established there. The information at that time 
was, a chapter was established eventually, but the point was — 
is that Ms. Garcia was very, very instrumental in helping in 
that chapter being established. 

Now, my question would be to someone, if she is 
lacking in some kind of communication, if she is lacking to some 
contact with her staff, then how was that chapter able to be 
formed? 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you very much. 

Next witness . 

MS. LOPEZ: Good afternoon. I'm Helen Lopez. I 
live in El Centro, California. I'm the CEO of a community-based 



45 



organization there who serves people with disabilities and over 
the age of 55. 

I'm the Chairman of the Centinela Citizens Advisory 
Committee. I'm a wife and mother of two. I'm a Board of 
Supervisors nominate to the CAC. 

I've had the pleasure of knowing Rosie, Mrs. Garcia, 
in many of the roles that she's served in for the past year. 
I've seen her in action at her facility. I've watched her in 
her administrative capacity as she orchestrates her management 
team at the CAC and in other venues . I ' ve heard her speak about 
her inmates and observed as she responds to her community. 

She ' s without question performed in all of these 
capacities with dignity, outstanding professionalism, and an 
uncanny knack for bringing any issue, no matter how 
inflammatory, into perspective. 

She is spoken of by my fellow citizens who work for 
her as a supporter and a fair boss, and by her community's 
leaders as visible, supportive, and active in her community. 

But there's a lot more to Rosie than these laudable 
attributes, for she has achieved something that is rare in 
Imperial County. She has been embraced and enfolded by our 
community, and we consider her our own. 

For those of you who have declined the pleasure of 
visiting the other end of your state, let me tell you a little 
bit about Imperial County. It is somewhat a county of a 
different color, to say the least. Many folks up here think 
that it's part of Arizona, part of Mexico, part of who knows 
where. Many people down there consider it a sovereign nation. 



46 



It's a community that historically has not always 
been served with understanding and sensitivity in the state's 
bigger picture. And as such, has developed a sense of suspicion 
for outsiders. 

For Rosie to have been embraced as she has is nothing 
short of miraculous, and to have done it in the span of less 
than a year is tribute to her integrity, her determination and 
her professionalism. 

On behalf of Imperial County Board of Supervisors, 
the citizenship of Imperial County, I urge your confirmation of 
Rosie Garcia. Her place in Imperial County would be impossible 
to replace. 

In the interest of time, I know there's a lot of 
speakers out there, let me just recognize a few and perhaps we 
can save a little time here. There are many people here from 
Imperial County that have come to support Mrs. Garcia. If I 
could just mention their names and have them stand briefly. 

Bill Condit, the Chairman of the IID Board of 
Directors. Carolyn Blankenship from I.V. Home Health. Other 
members of my Citizens Advisory Committee. Grace Cessna, who's 
also the President of Mana. Gilda McFadden and Ed McGrew. 

I also have a letter from the San Diego Blood Bank 
and from Mana, which is a national Latina women's organization 
from the local chapter, and I'll just read brief vignettes from 
those. 

From Mana: 

"Since her arrival, Mrs. Garcia has 

worked tirelessly for the benefit of her 



47 



community. She is a role model and an 
inspiration to Latinas in the Imperial 
Valley. 

"In April, 1994, she was named Dama 
de Distincion ..." 

which, for those of you who are not bilingual, is "Woman of 

Distinction" 

"by the chapter in Imperial County in 
recognition of her leadership abilities 
and impressive work ethics." 

And from the Blood Bank: 

"I had the pleasure of becoming 
acquainted with Mrs. Garcia early on in 
her tenure when I approached her about 
holding a blood drive for prison 
employees. She responded enthusiastically 
and without hesitation. Since that time, 
we've had several drives at Centinela, and 
not only is she the first in line to give, 
but she encourages her staff to do 
likewise. " 
I appreciate the brief time you've given me here 

today. I have a gentleman behind me, my son, who'd like to say 

just a word or two. 

Pay attention to that face. You may see it again in 

the future sometime. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Proceed, please. 

MR. SNYDER: Hello. My name is Morgan Snyder, and 



48 



I'm a representative for the graduating 8th grade class of Simi 
Elementary School. 

My school is very lose to the Centinela Prison in 
which Ms. Garcia is Warden. Ms. Garcia has allowed the prison 
to be built and to operate near my school without causing any 
problems . They have installed an escape alarm in our fire 
station. 

She has agreed to have her employees association help 
us raise money for our class trip. She always listens to what 
the citizens have to say, and we are extremely grateful for all 
she has done and will do for our class. 

We think that Ms. Rosie Garcia has done a good job, 
and she should continue to be the Warden there. 

Ms. Garcia, thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you very much. 

Who wants to follow that one? 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. BRISTER: Honorable Senators, my name is Gene 
Brister. I come here from the City of El Centro as the Mayor of 
that city. 

And I echo a lot of the things that Helen said. We 
do get accused of being a member of a different state. And of 
course, down there sometimes some of our citizens feel that 
we're a sovereign nation. 

But I remember when we, as citizens, when I was first 
active with the Chamber of Commerce, and we worked hard to bring 
the prison system into our community because we saw the economic 
value and the good citizenry that we had heard of in other parts 



49 



of the state. 

So, I made the trip from El Centro to Sacramento 
today to tell you that I've spoken with my other constituents on 
the Council, and they agree that a good citizen is an 
understatement of what Rosie Garcia has demonstrated as the 
Warden over the last year in our community. She has been at 
more events than I can begin to imagine to repeat back to you. 
And certainly, that is an indication of a person that is 
interested in their community. It is no wonder that, as Helen 
Lopez says, and she says that with conviction, because it is not 
a community that will embrace you if you have a stand-off 
attitude. And certainly, she embraced the community, and the 
community has embraced her. 

I have ran into her on numerous occasions. She is 
there for the community. She wants to be a part of the 
community. She is a part of the community in all aspects. 

I have also had the opportunity on many occasions, 
unbeknownst to Mrs. Garcia, certainly, to talk with people that 
have worked under her leadership. I am here to tell you only 
good things about Rosie, because I have not heard one bad thing 
about her until I came in these chambers today. 

So, I strongly urge you, and I will not belabor my 
message any longer, to confirm Rosie Garcia as the Warden of the 
Centinela Prison. 

Thank you very much. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you, Mayor. Any questions? 

Next witness. 

MR. MABRY: Good afternoon. I'm Roy Mabry. I'm the 



50 

State President for the California Association of Black 
Correctional Workers . 

I'm here today on behalf of the Association to give 
100 percent support for confirmation of Rosie Garcia, Warden of 
Centinela State Prison. 

My comments, my general comments, would be similar to 
those that you've heard from everybody, and probably what you'll 
hear later on, so with that, I'll just entertain whatever 
questions you might have. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Any questions? 

Yours is the group represented by Leon Ralph? 

MR. MABRY: Leon Ralph is our former lobbyist, yes. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Former? 

MR. MABRY: Yes. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

Senator Lewis . 

SENATOR LEWIS: I want to ask you the same question I 
asked Mr. Searcy. 

What's the membership of your Association? 

MR. MABRY: We're somewhere between three and five 
thousand. 

SENATOR LEWIS: And there's overlapping membership 
between your organization and CCPOA? 

MR. MABRY: Basically every member of the Association 
of Black Correctional Workers is a member of CCPOA, along with 
myself . 

Also, I'm a representative of the Supervisors for 
CCPOA . 



51 



SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you, sir. 

MR. MABRY: You're welcome. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Next witness. 

MR. LEWIS: Good afternoon. My name is Lindon Lewis, 
and I'm a little bit nervous. 

I began my career in November, 1981 at San Quentin 
State Prison, and at that time worked for and with Correctional 
Lieutenant Rosie B. Garcia. 

I've known her and have worked with her at three 
different institutions: San Quentin, Sierra Conservation 
Center, and Centinela State Prison. 

I kind of jumped my turn where I've been signed up 
because you'd addressed a couple things that I felt I could 
definitely shed some light on. One of those was that there was 
no support from the rank and file. 

I've been with the Department, working on my 13th 
year, and other than one year of that time have always been rank 
and file. And to my knowledge, and to the knowledge of many of 
the people that I've worked with, she is supported. 

We've worked in some very, very difficult times. The 
Department ' s changed drastically in the last ten years . And 
there's been full support by the people that I've worked with, 
but I work with a unique bunch. I'm one of the positive 
employees. I try to hold my head high. I'm proud to work in 
this department, and am real proud of many of the co-workers 
that I work with. 

It's a very difficult job until you become 
experienced and trained and comfortable in this setting, working 



52 

in a correctional institution. And it's a real unusual 
occupation, too. I don't think a lot of people probably 
consider staying in it when they first start. A lot of people, 
it's a stepping stone into law enforcement, other careers and 
stuff. 

But those of us that find we have a love for it and 
stay find it very rewarding once you fully understand what ' s 
going on. 

I worked for Ms. Garcia when she was Correctional 
Lieutenant. I've worked for her when she was the Chief Deputy 
Warden, and I've worked for her when she was an Acting Warden, 
and I've worked for her as the Warden at Centinela State Prison, 

I've also had the opportunity to work with her at 
Sierra Conservation Center as a board member of the local union 
chapter. I also was elected to Vice President at Sierra 
Conservation Center, and worked for a short time in that 
capacity, a very short time, prior to transferring out to fire 
camp. 

Each of the people that are involved with the union 
join the union and participate for a lot of different reasons. 
Some people have an axe to grind. Some people are disgruntled, 
and then some people want change. 

I hope that I joined for the reasons of change. I 
had worked with Ms. Garcia in the past, and I knew that that 
opportunity was there . 

Many issues come up in the daily operations of an 
institution, but there needs to be an understanding that you 
cannot please everyone. A correctional setting is a tough, 



53 



tough operation to run. 

And as I said, I remained rank and file through many, 
many years and many supervisors. And by far, this is the most 
approachable and concerned and personable supervisor manager 
that I've ever worked with. 

I got away from my prepared text , and that ' s probably 
good because it's lengthy. 

One other thing that I think I could shed some light 
on is some of the incidents. I was the security squad sergeant 
for the first year the prison opened. So, I worked under many 
of those emergencies that you described — discussed, sir. I 
was probably the lowest ranking member in the room, and blended 
in with the flies on the wall during these decision making 
times, but I was there, privy to the process and the concern 
that went on. 

I can remember one instance that wasn't mentioned, 
just where there was a rumor that we felt was valid that a 
correctional officer was to be assaulted in a stabbing assault. 
Ms. Garcia held — and I would be guesstimating the amount of 
hours of interviews — but assigned her correctional staff and 
her support staff to probably 16 hours of interview, until every 
inmate on that yard had been interviewed, until all of that 
information had been analyzed and reviewed, and then made her 
decision on how we would respond to that possible threat. 

But it ' s a double-edged sword when you stop a program 
at an institution. For those people that are not involved in 
the emergency, what little program there is, you're taking away 
from them. So, it's a major concern to return your prison 



54 

setting back to normal operation as soon as possible. 

The care and concern that goes out, and I've been 
behind those closed doors numerous times, is there. She truly 
cares about us. 

I came up here as a private individual today. I'm 
not the president of an association; I'm not — I'm also a 
member of CCPOA. 

But I'm here to tell you that I've been there. I've 
worked closely with her for many years, through her career, and 
I have 100 percent confidence. And I'd never take the time to 
come forward or to speak on anyone's behalf. 

I truly know she'll do a good job and has done a good 
job. And many, many of us support her fully. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: In summary, I gather that their 
number one statement of opposition, total lack of confidence by 
personnel over the years, you vigorously disagree with that 
statement? 

MR. LEWIS: Seriously disagree, and I've been there. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Any further questions? Senator 



Ayala. 



SENATOR AYALA: What is your current rank or rating? 
MR. LEWIS: I'm a parole agent in San Diego. 
SENATOR AYALA: You're no longer with the Department? 
MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. It's a division of — Paroles 



55 



is a division of the Department. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're a member of CCPOA? 

MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir, I am, rank and file member. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Next witness. 

MR. GRAN: Thank you Committee Members. My name is 
Mark Gran. I'm the Mayor of the City of Imperial, which is down 
in the Imperial Valley, right next to the City of El Centre 

I don ' t know how many times you have two mayors from 
two towns that are affected by a prison come up to support a 
confirmation of a warden, but my staff, my police department, 
the full Council, and the citizens of our community are very 
much in support of confirming Rosie Garcia for this position. 

I had a speech, but I'm not going to bring that up 
because we're short on time. 

But one thing you need to look at as far as the staff 
is concerned, I had the pleasure of riding up here. Many of my 
colleagues, and I'm not as eloquent as they are, but many of our 
colleagues flew up here. I had the pleasure to drive up with 
six staff members of hers in a van and stayed with them last 
night. It was very much a learning experience. 

And for CCPOA to say that the staff does not have 
confidence in her is not true. As far as the staff that I have 
met — and I'm a realtor down in the area, and I sell a lot of 
houses to CCPOA members — and there has not been one in the 
time that I've sold these houses that has ever complained about 
Rosie. 

She has the full confidence of our Council as she's 



56 

been a part of our community. Like everybody has alluded to, 
our area is very close knit. I've lived on and off down there 
for 25 years, and nobody gets in without showing a sincere 
effort to be part of the community. And she is part of our 
community, and we want her to stay there. 

Another thing, you look out in the audience; 70 
percent of the people that are here are staff members of 
Rosie's. They took their own time, their own effort, their own 
money, to come up here to support her. That doesn't show me 
that staff is against her. 

I hope you will confirm her as the Warden. Thank 
you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

Any questions? 

Next witness . 

MS. PEREZ: Good afternoon. My name is Anita Perez. 
I am representing the San Quentin Chapter of CCWA. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on 
behalf of Rosie Garcia. I have known Rosie for over ten years. 
It has been during this time that I have observed her decisive 
decision making skills and exceptional leadership qualities that 
contribute to the professional integrity of the California 
Department of Corrections . 

I had the opportunity to work under the direction of 
Rosie Garcia. I am the line staff, and the line staff that I 
know fully support her and respect her in every aspect of her 
administrative abilities. She was my lieutenant. 

I had the opportunity to work with Rosie on 



57 

affirmative action issues, in which her leadership and expertise 
provided a plan of action to improve those areas of concern. 
Her ability to work with concerned groups and address the issues 
impartially has encouraged favorable results. 

As a female working in the Department of Corrections, 
I appreciate Ms. Rosie Garcia in supporting women in 
corrections, and setting a positive example for the women in 
corrections. Ms. Garcia has afforded women the opportunity of 
training, development, and has prepared us for leadership 
responsibilities while creating the distinct precedent of an 
example for others to follow in the workforce throughout the 
Department of Corrections. 

There are those in this room, there are those maybe 
in other prisons, who disagree with the aforementioned. 
However, as with all conscientious leaders, there are an element 
of adversity which seem necessary preparation for great duties. 
I believe the personal indifference to the issues have clouded 
the reasoning and the real issues. 

Is Rosie Garcia an able administrator? Yes. Does 
she have the support of those on the line staff? Yes. Does she 
have the support of all the women in the Department of 
Corrections? I represent CCWA, and as a woman I say yes. 

She is supported by CCWA and is additionally 
supported vastly by the San Quentin Chapter. 

Those with special interests fail to distinguish 
essential matters from irrelevant and incidental ones. They 
intend to paint an untrue picture of Ms. Garcia 's administrative 
ability in an effort to discredit her in the minds of this 



58 

Committee and the women in the Department. 

I have seen Ms. Garcia* s long-standing support of 
women. I have also seen Ms. Garcia' s awareness of and 
sensitivity to all ethnic groups. 

Therefore, those in this room who attempt to 
discredit Ms . Garcia here at this hearing I believe do so out of 
personal vindictive reasons. They do not support, nor do they 
represent, the women in the Department. It is apparent that 
adversity seems to be a necessary preparation for great duties. 

I encourage each of you on this Committee to look at 
the performance and personal integrity of Ms. Rosie Garcia. 
Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

Any questions? 

Next witness. 

MR. CASTILLO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Committee Members. My name is Ray Castillo. I'm the Community 
Resource Manager for Centinela State Prison. 

I've been with the Department of Corrections 
eight-and-a-half years. I first met Ms. Garcia in '93, in March 
of '93, when she was assigned manager. 

As her Community Resource Manager, and on behalf of 
CCWA, Imperial Chapter, which I also happen to be President of, 
we wholeheartedly support Ms. Garcia 's confirmation as Warden. 

Ms. Garcia has been in Imperial County 22 months, and 
during that time has involved herself in many of the community 
affairs as well as community service organizations. Ms. Garcia 
has been an excellent example for promoting positive community 



59 

relationships. As a result, and as you've heard today in 
testimony, she has earned a great deal of respect from the 
community. 

Ms. Garcia has proven to be a very capable warden, 
demonstrating sincerity, conviction, and effective and genuine 
concern for the safety and security of her staff at the 
institution. With Ms. Garcia' s directions, Centinela State 
Prison has achieved a balanced workforce of qualified men, women 
and minorities . A recent peer audit gave her a very good 
rating. 

Ms. Garcia has nurtured Centinela State Prison, 
spending long hours for its successful activation. 

And one of the comments, if I could just comment. 
About a year ago, I heard her Chief Deputy mention that 
Centinela State Prison, of all the prisons that have ever 
activated, probably had some of the least or fewest numbers of 
incidents. I don't know what the statistics are, but that was 
just a comment. 

I'd like to acknowledge, and for the sake of — I 
realize we're running short of time, I'd like to acknowledge 
some chapter presidents that are here in this chamber today: 
James Natividad, Chuckawalla Valley State Chapter representing 
Chuckawalla State Chapter; also Mr. Dillon McFadden from the 
Urban League and on behalf of the Optimists Club is here in 
support . 

That's all I have to say. Thank you very much, 
gentlemen. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 



60 

Any questions? Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear your 
introduction. Did you say you were Chapter President of what? 

MR. CASTILLO: CCWA, the Chicano Correctional Workers 
Association, Imperial Chapter. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you very much. 

Next witness, Mr. Gomez. 

MR. GOMEZ: I want to take two minutes, Senator, 
because I think it ' s important . 

First, I'd like to say, Rosie still enjoys the full 
confidence of the administration to perform the duties at 
Centinela State Prison. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Do you want to identify yourself 
for the record? 

MR. GOMEZ: Jim Gomez, Director of Corrections. 

I also want to ensure that Members understand that 
these are difficult jobs. Being a warden of a 4,000 inmate 
prison, with the judgments and decisions that you have to make 
on a daily basis, are difficult decisions. And all of us in 
this profession understand that those decisions can be second, 
and third, and fourth guessed on occasion. And sometimes when 
we make decisions and look back on them, we wish we had had 
better information when we made them. 

I can tell you, Rosie 's done a good job there. This 
is not an issue today of a Hispanic woman, and I want to make 
sure that's clear for the record. This is an issue of Rosie 
Garcia. 

The CCPOA has been an equal opportunity opposer. 



61 

They have opposed white males; they've opposed Hispanic females; 
they've opposed blacks. And I think I would like to get that 
out, that's not what this is about. 

There's a judgment issue here, and there are members 
of the CCPOA who believe — and Rosie didn't say it, and her and 
I have talked about it many times — that she ' s too program 
oriented. That she tries to ensure that balance between staff 
and inmates. And it's a difficult balance that, when you run an 
institution, of how soon do you unlock, and lock, and let things 
get back to normal . 

And that's what 80 percent of what you're going to 
hear is really about today, is that kind of judgment. 

We monitor that judgment from Central Office, and she 
uses good judgment. There are difficult decisions, and many 
times it revolves around the information that you have available 
to you. 

I want to ensure for this Committee that you 
understand that we look at each and every one of those major 
incidents that occurred that you penetrated so well on, Senator 
Petris, in terms of what does that mean to the staff, and are we 
letting that place go too loose. We monitor that from Central 
Office. We talk on a daily and hourly basis. 

So, I just want to reconfirm to this Committee that 
we believe Rosie Garcia is the right person for that job today, 
and she's doing a good job down at Centinela. But it's a 
difficult job. It's going to have problems with unions, and 
it's going to have problems because any time you have 4,000 
inmates and a thousand employees, you're going to piss some 



62 

people off on occasion. 

Thank you very much. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I assume that concludes the support 
testimony. We'll hear from the opposition. 

MR. CONDIT: My name is Bill Condit. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: You're testifying in support? 

MR. CONDIT: Yes, certainly. 

My name's Bill Condit. I'm the President of the 
Board of Directors of the Imperial Irrigation District. I'm a 
past City Councilman for the City of El Centro, and past Mayor 
of the City of El Centro. 

I'm going to be brief. I have prepared a letter in 
support of the confirmation of Rosie Garcia I would like to 
submit . 

I just want to say offhand that I'm in a service club 
with Rosie, the Optimists Club, and I serve on the board of the 
Urban League with Rosie. And from what I've seen, she's 
definitely a top notch administrator. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you very much. Your letter 
will be made part of the record. 

I assume that does conclude the support testimony. 
We'll now here from the opposition. 

MR. NOVEY: Deputy Chairman Beverly, I guess is the 
appropriate title right now, and Senators, I'm Don Novey, State 
President — 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Imperial Russia. Vice Chairman. 

MR. NOVEY: Vice Chairman — of the California 
Correctional Peace Officers Association, representing 23,000 men 



63 

and women working the Youth and Adult Corrections Agency; 40 
percent of our membership is minority; 40 percent of our 
democratically elected membership at the executive level are 
minority. 

We are here today, unfortunately, to oppose Ms. 
Garcia for confirmation as Warden in our prison system. 

Senators , CCPOA has historically requested this body 
to pay close attention to our profession of corrections, and 
even Senator Petris, in reference to our salary, which I can 
appreciate. 

Presently, we are severely overcrowded with minimal 
projections of 250 percent inmate population by the end of this 
millennium. Also, there's a 19,000 bed emergency package on the 
Governor's desk today that, in essence, states that we've got to 
crowd existing facilities like rubber bands. Those granite 
walls and those fences can't move any further, but I guess we're 
going to be stuck with a difficult task because of "Three 
Strikes You ' re Out . " 

As has been stated in the past, and directly to the 
Chair of this Committee, we are willing and waiting to handle 
all serious and violent offenders under "Three Strikes." In 
addition, we are open to alternatives for nonviolent offenders, 
that other people might not have an openness to, but we do. 

But we cannot have managers at the highest level, 
quoting Senator Bill Lockyer, transmogrifying facilities and 
unending antropathy [sic] towards line peace officers. 

I would like to take a statement of personal note 
before our Executive Vice President speaks. 



64 



The last three institutions Ms. Garcia has served at, 
all three chapters have not supported her. Forty percent of 
those boards, democratically elected by the employees, are 
minority. 

In addition to that, at Sierra, all unions opposed 
Ms. Garcia. All unions. And Mr. Henning also, representing the 
California Labor Federation, opposes Ms. Garcia. 

It's not a CCPOA problem. It's a problem of 
management . 

I've been in the system; this is my 25th year, and 
I've been on some rocky roads and some things we can't even talk 
about on those rocky roads presently. There ' re some difficult 
things going on at Pelican Bay that, I think, are being handled 
in the federal court, and I think Jeff will allude to that. And 
I don't want to speak on any of those issues today, because 
Presiding Judge Thelton Henderson has full review, and I don't 
want to get on that man's bad side. So, I think we'll leave 
that out of the discussion today, and I think rightfully so. We 
won't use any of that in reference to Ms. Garcia. 

Mike. 

MR. JIMENEZ: Senators, my name is Mike Jimenez. I'm 
Executive Vice President of the California Correctional Peace 
Officers Association. I was elected democratically by a group 
of my peers . 

I'm here before you today to let you know that I 
object to any insinuation made by any other groups out there 
that CCPOA selects those wardens or those people that it chooses 
to endorse by anything other than the merits of what they have 



65 

done in the past. CCPOA is an open organization of men and 
women of Hispanic, of African-American, of white, of Asian, and 
of all other ethnicities. We do not make any decisions based on 
arbitrary or capricious matters. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Next witness. 

MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. 
Jeff Thompson with the California Correctional Peace Officers 
Association. 

Let me qualify our opposition here. It is not 
personal. This is professional. 

The fact of the matter is, the last three 
institutions where Ms. Garcia worked in upper management 
capacities, all three chapters have indicated a position of 
nonsupport, opposition, if you will, to Ms. Garcia 's 
confirmation. 

And again, these are difficult issues for us to 
confront . It's very easy for people to come forward and provide 
accolades, and of course, that's well intentioned, and so on. 

It's quite another thing to come forward, and as one 
of the chapter presidents mentioned to me today, commit, as he 
called it, career suicide at the institution, opposing your 
boss . 

So, I think you need to consider the kind of courage 
that it takes for these officers to come forward and lay before 
this Committee the types of concerns and the weighty concerns 
that you do have before you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Thompson, you don't think that 



66 

Senators, having some sensitivity to the work environment of 
state employees, is part of the liberal pap that I hear you 
complain about on television? 

MR. THOMPSON: I think you're referring to my debate 
with Vinnie Chiraldi from the San Francisco Bay area. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Those were the references I heard, 
yes. 

MR. THOMPSON: That had to do with sentencing 
policies, for the most part. We're trying to deal with 
operational issues here, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 

MR. THOMPSON: But I appreciate the side track there. 

My point here is that when you ' re at an institutional 
level, management has the hammer. This venue is the only place 
where citizens like the members of our Association are provided 
the access and the equal ground to have their issues heard. 

I might add that we appreciate the sensitivity by 
where you staff has come to Centinela, has taken time to talk to 
our people, and has provided an objective basis for bringing 
forward the issues that we do have with Ms. Garcia 's decisions 
as a manager. 

I might add, it's only in that context that we're 
opposed to her. We're not opposed to her on a personal basis, 
and it's clear that she has friends. We hope that they continue 
to expand. 

But we do think at this point, as the testimony will 
bear out, that she's been given too much responsibility to deal 
with at this level at this point. 



67 

Let me ask our first witness at the most current 
assignment at the Centinela State Prison, Al Gervin, to go into 
some of the details that are referenced in our memo, which 
Senator Petris was asking questions about earlier. The issues 
there have to do with managerial decisions that affect the 
safety and the health of employees . 

The issue in the Administrative Segregation Unit is 
one example . There are others . 

While we may have had the good fortune to dodge 
bullets as it relates to officers having their faces slashed, or 
so on, in most of these decisions, the fact that it does occur 
causes responsibility on our behalf to our membership to come 
forward and let you be aware of that, that we don't think these 
decisions are being made with the proper judgment or priorities 
we need to run our current system, which is 182 percent 
overcrowded, and basically like powder kegs. 

Let me ask Mr. Al Gervin to give you some more detail 
on the incident. 

MR. GERVIN: Mr. Chairman and Senators, my name is Al 
Gervin. I am the local Chapter President of the CCPOA. 

And to reiterate what Jeff said, it is very difficult 
to come in front of a body like this and oppose your boss. She 
is the boss. She is the Warden. 

But I feel it's necessary because it is my 
responsibility as the local Chapter President to ensure the 
safety of all of the officers, the staff, the inmates, and the 
public at large. 

So, I felt it was necessary to come forward with some 



68 

of these issues. This is not a personal attack on Ms. Garcia. 
This is a professional discussion of competency and judgments 
decisions that are made that place people in jeopardy. 

The incident in Ad. Seg., the Administrative 
Segregation incident, is very critical. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is this part of the list of 20? 
Is that what we're going to focus on here? 

MR. THOMPSON: We're only going to talk about two 
points . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I was going to say, is it off of 
that list? 

MR. THOMPSON: It's the detail that was provided 
behind the memo. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That would probably be helpful to 
get us to focus on whichever ones it is that you would wish to 
concentrate on. 

I didn't mean to interrupt your train of thought 
there, but I just wanted to get us focused right on the 
substantive — 

MR. GERVIN: The first one I wanted to focus on is 
the Administrative Segregation incident. You have a piece of 
paper titled "Ad. Seg. Incident." It's a separate piece of 
paper . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is not part of the 20? 

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, it is . It's in your supporting 
documents . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's new. It's not part of the 
20. I'm just trying to find the right piece of people; that's 



69 

all. 

MR. THOMPSON: It's on the three-page cover memo. 

SENATOR LEWIS: What is the date of this incident? 

MR. GERVIN: September 26, 1994. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Go ahead, please. 

MR. GERVIN: The reason I felt it was necessary to 
bring this incident forward is because it demonstrates my 
position that at Centinela State Prison, inmate programs are 
inherently more important to the administration than the safety 
of the public. 

This incident in Ad. Seg. , where the officer was 
slashed, very much could have been avoided. It should have been 
avoided. And I have to tell you, the day it happened, I went 
home and cried for a 24-year-old officer that will now live with 
an emotional scar for the rest of his life, as well as a 
physical scar, that could have been avoided. 

The programming in the Administrative Segregation 
Unit should have shut down. We had just shot and killed a 
Hispanic inmate. 

To clarify an earlier statement that is slightly 
erroneous, the inmate that did the slashing most definitely was 
involved in the prior day's incident. He had been involved in a 
previous incident, where a Hispanic inmate was shot and killed. 
We killed two Hispanic inmates in Ad. Seg. The inmate that 
attacked the officer was involved in both incidents. So, I just 
felt it was necessary to clarify that — that information. 

Yes, we did argue vehemently at the negotiations 
table when we activated the prison that probationary staff, 



70 

brand-new staff, should not work in Administrative Segregation. 
It was very much told to us it was the policy of the warden of 
the prison that they were going to work there, whether we liked 
it or not . 

This is the very reason we felt that these officers 
should not work in that unit. It ' s a very tough job to do to 
begin with, let alone work in an environment where you're 
working with the worst of the worst of your institution. These 
are people that have misbehaved in the general population 
setting and have bene put in Administrative Segregation because 
of their actions . 

That's all I'm going to say about that particular 
incident. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sir, I am compelled by the clock 
to shut us down. And I apologize for the inconvenience to you. 

MR. GERVIN: That's okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know this is going to take 
probably in the hours, not the minutes, to hear all of the 
thoughts . 

It's 6:30 or so before these ceremonies conclude. 
I'm somewhat reluctant to try to bring it back into the evening. 

With file notice, the appropriate time would probably 
be Thursday afternoon, if that would work with Members. We're 
here Friday for Friday's session, so I think the afternoon is 
probably wide open. 

Would that seem to accommodate your calendars here? 
We can still announce on the Floor a different time. Perhaps, 
each of you could just check in with your office quickly. If 



71 

there's a problem, let me know and we can try to reschedule 
somehow. 

MR. THOMPSON: Senator, on that point, given that we 
do have witnesses that are just beginning and haven't even 
started their testimony that are from out of town, can we get 
some notice prior to, so we can be present for your resumption 
of the hearing? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I assume pretty definitely 
it will be Thursday afternoon at 1:30. 

MR. THOMPSON: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: My apologies to you, sir, and to 
any other witnesses from out of town. 

The Governor only does this once a year for us , so 
we're kind of going to watch the food fight, frankly. The 
Assembly Republicans and Democrats haven't been together yet 
this year, so we might need to referee or take some of your 
pepper spray, or whatever it is that might work. 

But for any witness that is inconvenienced because of 
our shutting down, I apologize for that. We'll start over again 
on Thursday afternoon at 1:30. 

If there's any change in that, I'll make sure to call 
tonight or first thing in the morning. 

MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you all very much. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
4:30 P.M. ] 



72 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



this / / day of January, 1995. 



M 




WELYWJ. ^ZAK 
Shorthand Reporte 




u&£ 



267-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.00 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 267-R when ordering. 



9b 



' HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




DOCUMENTS MPT. 

JAN 2 7 1995 



SAN FrtANOSGCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 112 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 12,1995 
1:55 RM. 



266-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 112 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 12, 1995 
1:55 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRIS 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB 7 Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

ROSIE B. GARCIA, Warden 

California State Prison at Centinela 

DON NOVEY, State President 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) 

AL GERVIN, President 
Centinela Chapter 
CCPOA 

JIM GOMEZ, Director 

California Department of Corrections 

DOUGLAS COKE, Chapter President 
CCPOA 

CHUCK HERNANDEZ, Correctional Plant Manager 
Sierra Conservation Center 

SAM PURVIANCE, Vice President 
Sierra Conservation Center Chapter 
CCPOA 

DAVID TRISTAN, Deputy Director 

Institutions Division 

California Department of Corrections 



Ill 



APPEARANCES (Continued) 

HECTOR LOZANO, Correctional Counselor II 
CCWA, Sierra Conservation Center 

MARTIN RODRIGUEZ 

CCPOA, Centinela State Prison 



INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

ROSIE B. GARCIA, Warden 

California State Prison at Centinela 1 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

DON NOVEY, State President 

CCPOA 1 

AL GERVIN, Chapter President 

CCPOA, Centinela Chapter 1 

Opposition Professional, Not Personal 1 

Incident in Administrative Segregation Unit 

in September, 1994 2 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Date of Incident 4 

Involvement of Inmate in Prior Incident ... 4 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Appropriate Administrative Procedure .... 5 

Interview Process 6 

Questions to MS. GARCIA by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Response to CCPOA' s Accusations 6 

Questions to MS. GARCIA by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Normal Inmate Showering Procedure 8 

Questions to MR. GERVIN by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Specific Procedure which Was not Followed .... 8 

Resumption of Testimony by MR. GERVIN 9 

Failure to Recover Stabbing Weapon in 

March, '94 Yard Incident 9 



INDEX (Continued) 

Lack of Adequate Search Time 10 

Response by MS. GARCIA 10 

Recent Incident regarding Shell Casings 

on the Ground 12 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

How Long Yard Should Be Closed When 

No Weapon Is Found 13 

How Weapon Entered Facility 14 

Response by MS. GARCIA 15 

Officer Placed Trash Can over 

Shell Casing 16 

Questions of MS. GARCIA by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Reason for Officer's Bizarre Behavior 17 

Questioning of Officer Involved 17 

Questions of MR. GERVIN by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Awareness of Trash Can Incident 17 

Date of Incident 18 

Response by MS. GARCIA 18 

Questions of MR. GERVIN by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Service in Other Institutions with Warden 

Garcia 19 

Resumption of Testimony by MR. GERVIN 20 

Beautif ication Process Vs. Retrofitting 

Cell Doors with Cuff Ports 20 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Date of Conference Room Remodeling 20 

Inclusion of Complaint re Conference 

Room in Materials Submitted to Committee . . 21 

Prior Problem Was Landscaping Issue 21 



VI 

INDEX ( Continued ) 

Questions of MS. GARCIA by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Amount of Money Spent on Remodeling 22 

Could Same Money Have Been Spent on 

Prison Safety Enhancement 23 

Questions of MS. GARCIA by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Indication in Budget Dictates How Money Is 

to Be Spent 24 

Response by MR. GERVIN 24 

Response by JIM GOMEZ, Director 

California Department of Corrections 25 

Educational Funds Vs. Cuff Ports 25 

Multi-million Dollar Project Decisions Made 

by Central Office, not Institution 26 

Response by MR. GERVIN 27 

DOUG COKE, Chapter President 

CCPOA, Sierra Conservation Center 28 

Informational Picket in April, '92 28 

Asbestos Issue 29 

Response by MS. GARCIA 31 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Gossip about Redistribution of Overtime, 

Holidays, etc., among Staff 33 

Pipes not Encapsulated at Time of Picket 34 

Response by CHUCK HERNANDEZ, Chief, 

Plant Operations, Sierra Conservation Center ... 35 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Conflicts in Facts 36 

Need to Resolve Facts before Reaching 

Conclusion on Judgment 37 



Vll 

INDEX (Continued) 

Resumption of Testimony by MR. COKE 37 

Numerous Band-aid Approaches 37 

Response by MS. GARCIA 38 

SAM PURVIANCE, Chapter Vice President 

CCPOA, Sierra Conservation Center 40 

Incident in Disciplinary Committee Meeting 

Held in Administrative Segregation Building 

in Fall of 1992 40 

Inmate ' s Property at Base Camp Contained Two 

or More Live Rounds of Ammunition 41 

Committee's Dismissal of Ammunition Finding ... 42 

Response by MS. GARCIA 44 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Identity of Inmate Involved 45 

Date of Report on this Incident to 

Rules Committee 45 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

How Did Inmate Get Ammunition 46 

Number of Rounds 46 

Response by DAVID TRISTAN, Deputy Director 

Institutions Division 

California Department of Corrections 47 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Contention that Ms. Garcia Was Present 

at Disciplinary Hearing 48 

Time of Disciplinary Hearing on Incident . . 49 

Summation by DON NOVEY 49 

CCPOA's Opposition to only Three Wardens 50 

Judge Henderson's Rulings on Pelican Bay 

Issues 50 



Vlll 

INDEX (Continued^ 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Court's Decision 50 

CCPOA ' s Position on Judge's Decision .... 51 

Re-opening Facility after Inmate Slashes 

Officer 51 

Live Ammunition Incident 51 

Asbestos Incident 52 

General Comments on Supervising Massive 

Facilities 53 

Witnesses in Support; 

HECTOR LOZANO, Correctional Counselor II 

Sierra Conservation Center 55 

MARTIN RODRIGUEZ, Correctional Officer 

Centinela State Prison 59 

Closing Statements by MS. GARCIA 59 

Motion to Confirm 60 

Committee Action 61 

Termination of Proceedings 61 

Certificate of Reporter 62 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Warden Garcia, if you want to come 
on up. 

Where were we? We were taking opposition testimony, 
so wherever you wish to sit, please do. 

Now, sir, I'm sorry for the interruption. This was a 
"save that thought," and I'm sure you did. 

I you would wish to begin at the beginning, since 
you'd just really started. How did you wish to begin? However 
you wish to do this, sir. 

MR. GERVIN: I believe Mr. Novey here — 

MR. NOVEY: Chairman Lockyer, Senators, Don Novey, 
for reiteration here, President of the California Correctional 
Peace Officers Association, representing 23,000 men and women in 
the State of California working the corrections process, youth 
and adult. 

We'd like to continue our testimony from the other 
day, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

MR. GERVIN: Chairman and distinguished Senators, 
what I would like to do is start off by reiterating that this — 
my name is Correctional Officer Al Gervin. I am the Chapter 
President, CCPOA, Centinela Chapter, representing 583 men and 
women working the toughest beat in the state. 

I felt it was necessary to reiterate that the 
decision to oppose Ms. Garcia 's appointment to Warden was not a 
personal decision. Personalities have nothing to do with this. 



This was a professional decision. It took a lot of thought, I 
believe a lot of courage to stand and oppose my boss. She is my 
boss. And I felt it was necessary to come forward with 
information. 

The major concern that we at Centinela State Prison 
have as far as CCPOA and the people working the line is that 
under her leaderships, the policies and procedures that have 
been put into place jeopardize staff safety. They jeopardize 
inmate safety, and they jeopardize the public safety. 

One of the most glaring examples of that is the 
Administrative Segregation incident, which you have a copy of a 
memo that was written. 

I must say again for the record — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER; Why don't you restate the facts 
briefly. 

MR. GERVIN: That's what I was going to do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

MR. GERVIN: The basic facts behind the incident 
were, on September 26, 1994, during a fight on an exercise yard 
in the Administrative Segregation Unit, a Hispanic inmate was 
fatally shot by a correctional officer. 

The following day, normal program, with the exception 
of exercise yard, was run in the Administrative Segregation 
Unit. There was no cooling off period. There were no 
interviews to determine was there any possible retaliation 
against staff. 

This goes against every common correctional practice. 
Common correctional practices are, when you have a fatal 



shooting, you cool things down. You let things sit for a few 
days, however long it's determined. You do interviews. You 
determine the extent of possible retaliation against staff. 

This was not done. We were immediately returned to 
normal program. 

A very young correctional officer, 24 years old, less 
than four weeks at the institution, was working in the 
Administrative Segregation Unit. 

It should also be noted that at the negotiations 
table, we argued vehemently against probationary staff working 
that unit because of the very safety issues. It's tough enough 
to be a correctional officer, let alone work in the unit where 
you're working the worst inmates at your own institution. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why do you think you lost that 
argument? 

MR. GERVIN: The decision is ultimately that of the 
Warden, to place the officers in the positions that they want 
them in. And basically, that was the argument we lost. We made 
the argument at the table . We were overruled by the 
administration of the institution. 

The officer was working in the unit. An inmate, who 
was in a shower, who was involved not only in this fatal 
shooting; he was involved in a prior fatal shooting in the 
Administrative Segregation Unit, and was in Administrative 
Segregation due to a fight with weapons on one of the — one of 
the general population yards, the Level IV yard. 

In fact, in this second incident, the inmate that was 
shot and killed was the person he was involved in the fight 



with. They were together, two on one against another inmate. 
So, he was intimately involved in all three incidents, including 
the fatal shooting of his friend. 

He was taken to the shower. He called the young 
officer over. The young officer, not knowing the procedures, 
not knowing the policies, went to the shower. 

The inmate took an inmate-manufactured weapon out and 
slashed his face from above his eye, straight down his cheek, to 
his jaw line. 

This young officer is 24 years old, and is now 
emotionally and physically scarred for life, I believe because 
of the policies that were put in place at that institution. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I just need some clarification. 

What was the date of the incident that that 
particular inmate was involved in? 

MR. GERVIN: The date that caused him to go to 
Administrative Segregation? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Right. 

MR. GERVIN: It was several months prior to that. I 
don't know the exact date. I could go find it if I really 
needed to . 

SENATOR LEWIS: But that particular inmate was not 
involved in the incident involving the six on the prior day? 

MR. GERVIN: Yes, he was. In fact, if you look at 
the record, there is a pending district attorney referral, 
because any time an inmate is involved in a fight that results 
in the death of an inmate, it is referred to the district 



attorney for possible prosecution. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Okay. 

MR. GERVIN: The inmate was intimately involved in 
all the incidents. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Our problem here is that we've been 
— staff has made available to us information that is contrary 
to that, and says that he was not involved in that particular 
incident. 

MR. GERVIN: I've spoken to the officers that worked 
the Administrative Segregation Unit that day and said that he 
was right in the middle of it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The records we have, which are 
incident logs and various numbers — Hernandez, Resendez, 
Delgado, Jimeno, Castillo, and Johnston — in the previous day, 
and Montes as the one that was the slasher, this was the 
incident log. I don't know if there's other evidence. 

Now, let's say he was involved in the day before, 
just for purposes of — 

MR. GERVIN: Purposes of argument. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would that mean in your mind 
as to the appropriate administrative procedure with respect to 
shutting down, opening, or whatever? 

MR. GERVIN: The appropriate administrative procedure 
is, like I said, to not run any programs. 

What you do is, you typically interview all inmates. 
You start with inmates of the race that's involved in the fight, 
or that ' s involved in the fatal shooting by the correctional 
officer. If the correctional officer fatally shoots a black 



inmate, you typically start with interviewing the black inmates 
to determine what the feeling is for retaliation against 
correctional staff. 

So, because he was Hispanic, he should have been 
interviewed, or the interview process should have started before 
any program was run for those Hispanic inmates . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that interview process begun? 

MR. GERVIN: No. They immediately went to normal 
program . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know the right way to 
handle this, and I'll defer to the Committee. Is it to just 
take all the testimony, and if you can remember to refer back 
for purposes of rebuttal, to do that? Of whether, when a 
particular issue like this comes up, ask for any comment on the 
particular one. 

I ' d be happy to do it whichever way. I'll just 
assume we'll do the traditional, listen to all the testimony, 
unless some Member wants to ask for a response or rebuttal, and 
go ahead . 

Yes, Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to see the Warden respond to 
this accusation so it ' s fresh in our minds . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Fine. Any Member that wants to do 
that, I think that's appropriate. 

So we'll defer to Warden Garcia, if you or anyone 
else with you would wish to comment on either the specifics or 
the general policy that's been argued. 

MS. GARCIA: This was — this is what had happened in 



an administrative segregated yard, which was a restricted 
housing. 

Inmate Montes was, in fact, not involved. He was not 
on the yard that day that inmate death occurred. 

The inmates were secured in their cells, and the 
yards were not implemented or, you know, brought back out again 
that day, nor did we intend to put them out for a while until 
interviews did start, until the interviewing began. 

We don't necessarily begin the interviewing right 
away. At that time, we had other incidents happening throughout 
the facility. 

There is no programming in segregated housing that we 
have. What Mr. Gervin was speaking about, programs, I think he 
was referring to the showering. That's a condition of 
segregated housing. We're mandated or are required to give the 
inmates a shower once every three days . 

There are no inmates in the floor at the same time 
that other inmates are out there. Specifically, they're never 
out without being handcuffed. 

What we did — what I did implement was a showering 
procedure where no more than two inmates would be showering at 
one time. There are certain procedures in place that are 
required by the staff where the — when they go to an inmate's 
cell to remove him, there should be two. The inmate should be 
handcuffed and then escorted directly to the shower area, which 
is what transpired that day. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, Warden, as I understand, the 
general procedure is, they shower three times a week. 



8 

MS. GARCIA: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And in your order at the time, it 
was twice a week. It looks like that's the paper work. 

MS. GARCIA: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They were going to be reduced to 
two. 

MS. GARCIA: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But other programs, whatever those 
might be, that's what I'm trying to understand. What is it that 
didn ' t happen that you think should have happened? Was it the 
showers, or no? 

MR. GERVIN: My major contention was that the shower 
program did not have to begin the very next day. By our own 
rules and regulations, like she said, every three days you must 
shower the inmates . There was no reason to begin showering the 
inmates the very next day, especially that ethnic group that had 
just, the previous day, been in a fatal shooting. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's the difference, the 
judgment or whatever, that was the difference between what 
happened and what you thought should not have happened, was the 
showering. 

MR. GERVIN: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's not something else: let's 
all walk to the library together, or something. Yards are 
closed down, too; are they not? 

MR. GERVIN: Yes, they did in fact shut the yards 
down. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So really, the shower is the 



issue, and whatever exposure to risk that that created for 
correctional officers. 

MR. GERVIN: That's correct. 

MS. GARCIA: When we have occurrences like this, if 
we have it on the mainline, where we have a general population, 
Gervin is correct in that we do hold back the inmates of the 
ethnic groups that were involved. 

In the case of Administrative Segregation, since 
Montes was not in that same yard, there was no reason to 
restrict, you know, inmates that were not involved. At this 
point, we deemed him uninvolved, and the showering did go on. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We can't relitigate all these 
things here, but I think we want to get at least an impression 
of what the controversy's about. 

Maybe you could go on with your next point. 

MR. GERVIN: The next point I wish to make is, the 
incident that occurred back in March of '94, which is also in 
your package. It's an incident that occurred between northern 
and southern Hispanic inmates . There was a stabbing on the 
yard. The weapon was not recovered, and as per our general 
policy — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You thought the search was 
inadequate? 

MR. GERVIN: Not only did I think the search was 
inadequate, but the lieutenant on duty at the time, Lt. Glaser, 
felt that the search was inadequate; requested additional time 
to conduct that search; requested that the program not be locked 
down, as it's being portrayed that we've requested lock downs. 



10 

We ' re not asking for lock downs . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Pardon me. This is what we know 
of as Issue Number 7, if someone's trying to follow the written 
materials . 

MR. GERVIN: What was requested by the lieutenant, 
and what is normal custodial practices when you've had a 
stabbing on a yard, is to search all of the inmates to 
determine, one, if you have more — you may have more victims; 
you may not know. To determine if you can find the weapon. 
Then you conduct a thorough search of the yard. 

The lieutenant requested additional time, additional 
program lag time, before programming began again, which is yard, 
work assignments, and things like that, to affect a complete and 
thorough search of the yard. 

He was, in fact, overruled by the administration and 
was told to return to normal programming. 

And the lieutenant still believes to this day that 
that was inappropriate, that needs to be more time to effectuate 
a search. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Warden, consistent with the prior 
thought, did you wish to respond? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, I do. 

There have been numerous incidents. I'm trying to 
recall back from my memory on this day. 

When an incident occurs, several things happen. I 
don't make the decision based on just for making a decision. I 
have to get input from my supervisory staff as well as 
management staff. We have a meeting immediately as soon as they 



11 

find out what the issues were. 

No, the yards are not put back on, or do not go back 
to normalcy until such time that we're able to determine what 
the cause was, taking into consideration, first of all, staff 
safety, then the inmate safety, and then the overall 
programming. 

I base my decision based on the information that I 
received from my staff. On this occasion, I did not receive any 
indication or any word that anyone was concerned about bringing 
the program back to normalcy. 

The yard was searched. Inmates were searched. 
Inmates were interviewed; staff were interviewed. And the 
information that I had in front in me made me determine that we 
could go safely back to the normal operation. We did remove the 
inmates involved. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any further comments, sir? 

MR. GERVIN: The only comment I would wish to make is 
that the yard was in fact not searched. I was on the yard that 
day. A very cursory search was made. No metal detectors were 
brought out, no picks, no shovels, no additional equipment to 
assist us in the searching. We made a cursory search of the 
immediate area, and we returned to normal program. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was there another one — 

MR. GERVIN: The only other point I would make is 
that the on duty lieutenant did in fact request additional time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I'm sorry. I meant any other 
incidents that you wish to comment on? 

MR. GERVIN: Yes. There's a most recent one which, 



12 

unfortunately, you don't have because it just happened as week 
ago. I'll just state for — what I want to state for the record 
is that this shows the ongoing pattern that I believe that 
inmate programs take priority at our institution over staff 
safety. 

Just recently, another incident broke out on C 
Facility Yard. Two shots, in fact, were fired; two warning 
shots. No inmates were hurt. So, it was a fight. 

The inmates in the immediate area were taken out of 
the area, the inmates involved in the fight. There were several 
other inmates in the area that were moved to the other side of 
the yard, and yard was resumed immediately. 

We had live — not live casings. We had shell 
casings on the ground, on the yard, in the area the inmates were 
in. The officer in the yard observation booth that has the 
weapon still had what is called a hot weapon that had been fired 
and still had a round in the chamber. 

Standard practice is, you don't do anything until 
that weapon is removed, because the weapon becomes part of the 
evidentiary process . 

But the facility was returned to normal programming 
while all of this was going on. There was no search of any 
other inmates other than the three inmates involved in the 
fight. 

Typically, fights on an exercise yard like that, a 
lot of times, are diversions for something else that's happening 
somewhere else, to divert our attention, custodial staff's 
attention. 



13 

This was a tackle football game that was being 
allowed to occur on a Level IV yard, which is not typical 
programming for Level IV inmates . 

And no search was made of any other inmates, other 
than the three inmates involved in the incident. 

And the reason I bring it up is because it goes to 
the same pattern, that time and time again, we immediately 
return to normal inmate programs without affecting searches for 
weapons , other victims , or recovering anything that we need to 
recover . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: In reading the issue Number 7, the 
CCPOA issue, it says the lieutenant that the yard be closed 
until the weapon was found. The weapon was never found. 

We should keep the yard closed even up to today? I 
don ' t understand that . 

MR. GERVIN: No. What the lieutenant requested was 
the yard be closed until a more effective search could be done. 

Yes, he wanted to find the weapon. That's our 
purpose, is to find the weapon. 

SENATOR AYALA: But you never found it. 

MR. GERVIN: Because the yard was returned to normal. 
Once you turn the inmates loose on the yard again, you'll never 
find a weapon. The inmates will retrieve the weapon and either 
destroy it — 

SENATOR AYALA : You ' ve got to keep right there and 
search right there and then so they don't have a chance to — 

MR. GERVIN: Right, that's what you need to do, is 



14 

you stop everything and search immediately to find the weapon, 
instead of returning to normal program. 

Once you return to programming, you put the inmates 
back into the facility and back on the exercise yard, they move 
the weapon. They know where the weapon is. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're talking about the symptoms of 
what happened . 

How did the weapon get there in the first place? Do 
you ever stop to think about that? Were you folks on the ball 
when that weapon was brought into those grounds? 

MR. GERVIN: Yeah, there are weapons in prison. That 
is a fact. We all live with that fact. 

SENATOR AYALA: Weapons within the premises. 

MR. GERVIN: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: And how do they get there? 

MR. GERVIN: They make them. 

SENATOR AYALA: They make them? 

MR. GERVIN: The State of California gives every 
inmates razors. Every razor has a razor blade in it. An inmate 
can very quickly take a razor apart and manufacture a weapon in 
a matter of seconds . 

SENATOR AYALA: Matter of seconds. 

MR. GERVIN: In a matter of seconds. 

SENATOR AYALA: They manufacture a weapon. But these 
aren ' t regular weapons we think about when we think about guns . 

MR. GERVIN: Right. They're not guns; they're not 
knives that you would go buy in the store. 

These are inmate-manufactured weapons that they make 



15 

out of various items that are available to them. 

SENATOR AYALA: Maybe we should issue all those 
inmates an electric razor so you don't have those blades. 

MR. NOVEY: Senator Ayala, you've brought up a real 
good point . 

Don Novey, representing CCPOA. 

We've seen inmates make knives out of styrofoam cups 
They ' re very ingenious , and that ' s probably why they ' re where 
they 're at . 

MS. GARCIA: May I respond to that incident also? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sure. 

MS. GARCIA: The procedure that we have, we do have 
two security squad officers assigned to each yard. Any time 
there's a shooting in the yard, a yard down, or an incident, 
security squad immediately notifies the squad lieutenant and 
sergeant, and they respond to the area. 

Consistent with whatever the emergency is or the 
nature of the incident, they search. You know, if the incident 
calls for a more extensive search, then that is done. The 
recommendation is to keep the yard down and continue searching, 
and we do that . 

Again, you know, the information that I received was 
that there were no weapons. They did do an extensive search, 
along with the security squad and the staff members there. And 
they felt that it was — the inmates that were involved were 
removed from the yard, and we felt it was safe for everyone 
involved. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Additional testimony? 



16 

MR. GERVIN: Just for the information of the 
Senators, one of the points that I made on this latest incident 
was that when the two shots were fired, the shell casings were 
on the ground and available to the inmates. In fact, to this 
date, one has never been recovered. One is now in the hands of 
the inmates somewhere . 

I found this information out yesterday afternoon from 
the armory officer. The office that works the armory advised me 
that only one of the two shell casings was in fact recovered 
because they weren't recovered right away and yard was resumed. 

Once you turn the inmates loose, anything that's in 
the area is going to be gone. They're going to get rid of it. 

MS. GARCIA: May I respond to that? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What if they swallowed it? 

MR. GERVIN: They've been known to do that before. 

MS. GARCIA: May I respond to that incident? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. GARCIA: My understanding was that there was one 
shot fired and one casing on the yard. 

The inmates were removed from the area for the 
purpose of searching for that casing. 

In talking to my staff, I found that an officer did 
in fact see the casing. He placed — rather than pick it up and 
take possession of it, he placed a trash can over the casing, 
walked away from it, and came back quite a few minutes later and 
found that in fact the casing was no longer there. 

An extensive search was done of that yard, of the gun 
post area, and we have not recovered the weapon — excuse me, 



17 

the casing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The trash can's still there, 
though? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes, it was. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Why did the officer do that? 

MS. GARCIA: I have no idea, sir, but that was not 
within procedure. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Has anyone on your staff questioned 
the officer to why he did that? 

MS. GARCIA: I'm sure they have. 

SENATOR LEWIS: You're just not aware of the answer 
yet? 

MS. GARCIA: No, I'm not aware of it. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Gervin, are you aware of that 
trash can incident? 

MR. GERVIN: Yes. That's what was explained to me by 
the armory officer, that in fact the trash can was placed over 
the top of the shell casing. 

The officer was ordered to do so by the on duty 
lieutenant. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Have you had a chance to talk to the 
on duty lieutenant as to — 

MR. GERVIN: As a matter of fact, I have spoken to 
the on duty lieutenant, and it's another point that I need to 
make in this . 

You need to understand, I have a pending grievance on 
this entire issue, and I'm not here to resolve that grievance. 
I just believe that the information — 



18 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long ago did this happen? 

MR. GERVIN: This happened on the 4th, January 4th. 

I spoke to the on duty lieutenant about the entire — 
my entire concerns about the way the issue was handled, the 
safety concerns that I've had, the returning to normal program. 

And in accordance with my contract, I sat down with 
the on duty lieutenant who had made the decisions. His 
statement to me was, and this is part of my argument in this 
grievance conference, that it is the policy of the Warden here 
at Centinela State Prison that inmate program will continue with 
as little interruption as possible. That was the statement that 
was made to me by the on duty lieutenant. 

SENATOR LEWIS: What does that have to do with 
picking up the casing? 

MR. GERVIN: It doesn't have anything to do with the 
casing, other than he just wanted to cover it so he could get 
the yard back up and go back to programs . 

I guess he felt that would secure the casing, with 
the inmates walking around it . I don ' t know what his theory 
was . 

MS. GARCIA: May I address that, please? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Certainly. 

MS. GARCIA: This is news to me. 

I did speak to my staff at the institution, and no 
one is aware of the lieutenant giving instructions to that 
officer. 

Someone did talk to that officer, and the feedback I 
got back was that in fact the inmate — the staff left it there 



19 

on his own volition and walked away from it. 

It could be that he wasn ' t knowledgeable in the 
procedure or process. I don't know at this point, but he did 
walk away. And there was no indication to me that a lieutenant 
had ordered him or instructed to leave it there. 

SENATOR LEWIS: That strikes me as very bizarre 
behavior. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, it seems like you'd put it in 
your pocket. I don't know. 

Mr. Gervin, have you concluded, or were there any 
other things you wanted to raise? 

MR. GERVIN: That was all the examples I wanted to 
give, because I could go on and on and on. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've seen the memos with a longer 
list, so I think we're aware of the general idea. 

MR. GERVIN: Right, and that's why I brought these 
three examples forward. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you ever been in an 
institution, a different one, with Warden Garcia? 

MR. GERVIN: Yes, I have. I was at Pelican Bay State 
Prison when she was an Associate Warden there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you have occasion to work 
together there? 

MR. GERVIN: No. She worked the Security Housing 
Unit, and I worked general population. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Were you going to add something? 

MR. GERVIN: I had another point to go over. 



20 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sure, please. 

MR. GERVIN: One of the other major issues, if you 
look at the cover letter we gave, was the landscaping, ongoing 
landscaping, beautif ication processes, and things like that. 

I understand that in the bond measure that creates a 
prison and funds a prison, that a certain amount of money is set 
aside specifically for the purpose of landscaping. I do not 
have an issue with that. That is in the bond. It is required, 
that the prison must aesthetically fit into the community. 
Communities request that, and that's the way they're funded. 

What I have a concern with is ongoing projects that 
are done, and if the money is not available to retrofit or 
remodel my cell doors to have cuff ports in the Level IV Unit, 
my question is, how do we have the money to completely remodel a 
conference room in a brand-new prison? 

One of the conference rooms in this brand-new prison 
was completely remodeled, with a beautiful oak table, recessed 
ceiling. I have pictures, if you'd like to see it. 

That's my concern. We have a remodeling project that 
remodels a conference room at a brand-new prison, yet we totally 
ignore a safety issue of having cuff ports in a Level IV 
setting, which by the Department's own design criteria, calls 
for cuff ports in cell doors. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Gervin, when was this conference 
room remodeled? 

MR. GERVIN: It was just remodeled just prior to the 
recent wardens ' conference that occurred at Centinela State 
Prison. 



21 

SENATOR LEWIS: And when was that? 

MR. GERVIN: Within the last month is when the 
conference was . 

SENATOR LEWIS: Was your complaint or displeasure 
about the conference room included in any of the materials you 
submitted to this Committee? 

MR. GERVIN: No, because they just finished the 
project, and up until recently you couldn't even get in the 
conference room because they kept the door locked while they 
were doing the remodeling. So, no one knew what they were even 
doing in there. 

SENATOR LEWIS: When were you aware of that? 

MR. GERVIN: I just became aware of it maybe a month 
ago, but I was just able to obtain the photographs of it. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I guess my concern about that element 
of your testimony is that, or other testimony, is that up until 
now, the complaint has been the problem with the landscaping. 
And now, all of a sudden, at the Committee we're hearing that 
the problem's the conference room. 

MR. GERVIN: No. It really hasn't been landscaping 
itself. It's just overall beautif ication projects, which part 
of that is the landscaping. There's also — they also made a 
change to the front of the administration building. They put, 
for lack of a better word, a hotel canopy over the front 
entrance of the administration building. Money was spent for 
that. 

The Warden's office area was totally remodeled. 

And my concern is, we have the money available to 



22 

spend for those types of things to make our jobs more 
comfortable, but we're told at numerous negotiations tables, 
numerous meetings, that we don't have the money available to 
make the safety improvements in the Level IV facility, which is 
the food ports, the cuff ports. That's what I have trouble 
reconciling. 

And I have trouble reconciling that to my membership, 
because they look — they work the line. They work everyday in 
the facility, and they see that there is no — there's no way to 
place mechanical restraints on an inmate who is being aggressive 
or abusive in his cell safely. You have to open the cell door 
to effectuate that. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Warden, can you tell us how much 
money was spent on the remodeling? 

MS. GARCIA: I want to make it clear that my office 
was not remodeled. 

As we ran out of room after activation, I no longer 
have a conference room adjacent to the Warden's office 
conference. I'm using that as office space. And I do have a 
need for a conference room in which to bring the media, the 
daily tourists from the community, and so on. 

We — the Department funds educational programs for 
every institution. We have an educational program that includes 
— we get monies for the educational programs, which vocational 
instruction as well as academic. 

Along with that funding comes funds for materials . 
These materials are utilized for the training inmates in these 
programs to learn trades . 



23 

It is true that a big oak table was built. It was 
built by the inmates in the vocational program, Mill and 
Cabinet. Funds used from the educational fund for materials. 

We have also built concrete tables and benches for 
the visiting areas that have been built by Vocational Masonry. 

We do have a canopy that I had constructed for the 
front of the administration building, and we're having more 
constructed for the entrances, all staff entrances. When the 
summer heat reaches at 128, it's kind of hard for staff in these 
areas. And all the materials were bought at a minimal expense, 
and all were manufactured by the inmates in these vocational 
programs . 

Vocational Upholstery built the canopy in conjunction 
with Vocational Welding, who built the structures to place the 
canopy on. There are benches that have been built by the 
Vocational Mill and Cabinet in conjunction with the Welding Shop 
for staff to be able to sit in various areas of the whole 
institution on their breaks . 

While we're doing all this, I think that everybody 
wins. It's a win-win situation, in that it defrays a lot of the 
taxpayers' dollars. It allows for the enhancement of the 
institution, and also the inmates are learning a trade. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Can you give me a handle on just 
approximately how much money might have been spent on remodeling 
or other purchases that were fungible dollars that could have 
been spent on enhancing safety in the prison? Were any of those 
dollars fungible, or were they all — 

MS. GARCIA: The amount of money that I spent I could 



24 

not spend on salaries or wages, or any other projects. It was a 
minimal amount . 

It cost a total of approximately $3,000. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Ms. Garcia, when you submit your 
yearly budget to, in this case, Mr. Gomez, don't you indicate 
you want so much money for maintenance, so much money for the 
road construction within the premises, security. And if it's 
approved, you can only use it for that particular case? 

MS. GARCIA: That's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, the money that you used for this 
table was earmarked for that; was it not? 

MS. GARCIA: Pardon? 

SENATOR AYALA: The money that you used for the 
table, and whatever was used for that, was earmarked for that 
purpose in your budget? 

MS. GARCIA: Correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't understand your problem. 

MR. GERVIN: The problem that I have with it is 
having sat at numerous negotiation tables with the Department of 
Corrections. It was represented to myself and CCPOA, many, many 
of those tables, that specific budget items are not necessarily 
— the money doesn't necessarily have to be spent on that. 

The question becomes, O&E versus payroll. 

SENATOR AYALA: That budget is approved with that 
money going for that purpose. You can't transfer it to security 
or anything else. Am I correct in assuming that? 

MS. GARCIA: That's correct. 



25 

MR. GERVIN: That's not what's been represented by 
the Department of Corrections. In fact, at a particular 
negotiations table, it was represented that each institution, 
and it was represented by a very high person in the Department 
of Corrections, and I'm not going to say his name. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are these items negotiable? 

MR. GERVIN: No, no. What was represented to CCPOA 
at this negotiation table was, each institution is given a pot 
of money. This was represented by the Department of 
Corrections . And as long as the institution lives within that 
pot of money, the Department of Corrections doesn't care what 
they do with it, as long as they live within that pot of money. 

SENATOR AYALA: They get a block grant with no 
spelled out issues? 

MR. GERVIN: That's correct. That's what was 
represented to CCPOA at a negotiating table. 

SENATOR AYALA: I've never seen a budget like that 
before, and I've been here 21 years. 

MR. GOMEZ: I'm Jim Gomez, Director of Corrections. 

Mr. Gervin's talked about representations of the 
Department. I think we need to put this in perspective. 

What Mr. Gervin asked for at the bargaining table was 
new cell doors with cuff ports. And I understand that. A 
multi-million dollar issue. 

What we ' re talking today about is inmate funds . I 
mean, academic and vocational education funds; that I have an 
expectation that wardens beautify institutions. I have an 
expectation that they put covers in 120 degree heat for staff, 



26 

and for visiting, and for inmates. 

I have an expectation that academic and vocation 
programs produce work product. That you teach someone to do a 
vocation project, it ' d be nice that you had a product when you 
were done. And that's the whole purpose of vocation. 

So, what I think Mr. Gervin is saying is, he wished 
that we had made a policy decision to move this money from 
vocational education, these supplies, and direct it toward the 
food ports . 

It was a multi-million dollar issue that Mr. Gervin ' s 
talking about. That decision is made in Central Office. It's 
not made by Ms. Garcia in terms of those food ports that he 
wants, and we turned him down at that institution as well as 
other institutions that we have converted. 

And I think they know that's a Central Office 
decision on cuff ports, not an institution decision. 

SENATOR AYALA: But the gentleman just said that he 
understands that the prisons are given a block grant to be used 
any way they see; that priorities are set by that particular 
prison. 

Is that correct? 

MR. GOMEZ: The prisons have three or four separate 
fund sources . One is salaries and wages and benefits . Another 
is operating expense and equipment, and a third is education, 
which is — traditionally, education supplies are separate. 

SENATOR AYALA: Used for those purposes only? 

MR. GOMEZ: That we use for those purposes. 

Now, money has been moved from operating expense to 



27 

salaries and wages, and money has been moved from salary and 
wages to operating expense. Mr. Gervin ' s right about that. 

But in terms of the magnitude, to move $3,000 from 
here, or $5,000 from here, is not an uncommon issue. 

To move $2 million to build these ports that he's 
talking about, we're talking an entire capital outlay project. 
You have to go through the capital outlay process. It's a two 
to three-year process. Come to the Legislature and lay that 
out. 

We made clearly the decision that we were not going 
to do that. And locals negotiate, but you should be clear. 
That's a decision that comes to my level at Sacramento relative 
to those food ports . 

And we believed when we activated that, there's a 
temporary Level IV. It's not a permanent Level IV. And we 
believed that it would not be a good expenditure of taxpayer 
funds for, on a temporary basis, to go in and change out 1,000 
cell doors, which is what the request was: to change out 1,000 
cell doors. 

SENATOR AYALA: You answered my question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Gervin. 

MR. GERVIN: I'm just going to make one minor, little 
point, and then we can move on. 

The information that was presented to us at the 
negotiation table was that the cost to the institution would be 
$100,000. That information came from the Chief Deputy Warden, 
who was in Planning and Construction when the institution was 
developed. 



28 

It was not presented as a multi-million dollar 
project. It was simply presented as a cost of approximately 
$100,000 to put cuff ports in. 

That's why I believed it was an issue. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, if you thought it was a 
multi-million, if you hadn't been misinformed, assuming that the 
Director's facts are the correct ones, would that be likely to 
be a Central Office issue, rather than a local? 

MR. GERVIN: Absolutely. I agree. If it was a 
multi-million dollar project — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The answer is yes. 

MR. GERVIN: — but that's not what was represented 
to us . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Mr. Gervin. 

Did others here want to comment? 

MR. COKE: Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name is Doug 
Coke. I come from Sierra Conservation Center where I'm a 
correctional officer. 

I'm also the Chapter President of the California 
Correctional Peace Officers Association. 

On Monday, we heard a little bit of representation 
that Ms. Garcia had always had 100 percent of her staff 100 
percent behind her. 

Well, back in April 3rd, 1992, we placed 150 officers 
and free staff alike, people representing the California 
Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California State 
Employees Association, Allied Trades and Maintenance, the 
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees on 



29 

an informational picket line. 

Prior to going out on the picket line, we had a CCPOA 
general members meeting. I represent approximately 350 officers 
at Sierra. Of that, I ran three different meetings, and of that 
I had an unprecedented 300 participants. I've never had a 
meeting that size before or since. 

Of those 300 participants, there were two votes 
taken. Both were unanimous. One was a vote of no confidence in 
Ms. Garcia and her policies, and the other was a vote to hold an 
informational picket to take our issues to the media, as the 
information flow between administration and ourselves had 
ceased. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What were the issues? 

MR. COKE: I'd like to address one of the major 
issues, rather than open up a quagmire. I'd rather just go down 
one road. It'll be a whole lot easier for all of us. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That ' d be helpful. 

MR. COKE: One of the biggest issues — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Asbestos. 

MR. COKE: — was the asbestos issue; that's correct, 
sir. 

In the Mariposa and Calaveras yard offices, that's 
the area within the units where yard activities — volleyball, 
horse shoes, handball, even supplies for the dorms, cleaning 
supplies, et cetera — are issued out. 

There are large pipes, four to six inches, that are 
encased with asbestos. This asbestos is sealed with a plaster 
type product. Its actual composition I couldn't speak to. 



30 

The pipes had a bad habit of hammering, like a water 
hammer; created cracks in the seal coat around the asbestos. 
This led to the asbestos dust raining down on the officers that 
were assigned to that unit, myself being one of them. 

On a daily basis, at any given time, you could come 
into that office, whether our inmates had cleaned it or not, and 
get the appearance of over a year's worth of dust in your house. 
You could sweep it with you hand, and you were dusty from the 
products coming down on you. 

We brought the issues via the chain of command per a 
memo Ms. Garcia had authored in January of this same year to our 
supervisors, and ultimately it led to Ms. Garcia. We requested 
in writing and verbally that either the asbestos be removed or 
properly sealed, or if, for some reason, the abatement was an 
expense that she couldn't handle with her budget, and we 
understood that, simply move the function of that office ten 
vertical feet upstairs to an office that is a storage and 
alternative barber shop within the unit. 

That area had been used on three different occasions 
the preceding 12 months for that exact purpose. With different 
things going on out in the yard office, they had moved the 
function of the yard office upstairs. 

We simply asked that that occur again until she was 
presented the opportunity to address the issue. 

We were told point blank: no, it was not going to 
happen. And in writing, she responded back that there was no 
ongoing asbestos problem at Sierra Conservation Center, and 
that's quote. It's within the package that I believe you 



31 

Senators have got. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've received that. And it was 
later determined that there was a problem. 

MR. COKE: Yes, sir. 

Now, I understand — recently I've come to some 
information that perhaps the numbers that she was operating with 
didn't qualify it for certain standards. I can appreciate that. 

But if that was the case, why, immediately after 
being contacted by the newspapers, did she have it encapsulated? 
That's one of our biggest issues. 

I have had two very close friends of mine die from 
asbestoses. It is without a doubt the most horrible thing I've 
ever seen a person die from. 

My concern then and now is the potential deaths of 
my partners . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: May I ask for a response? 

MR. COKE: Absolutely. 

MS. GARCIA: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sir, if you want to come up on 
this issue, too. 

MS. GARCIA: I remember that instance. Officer Coke 
did raise the issue of asbestos in that area. 

We had had, recently had, staff in maintenance 
specifically trained in hazardous materials, and those type of 
issues, we had the maintenance people go out to the area. And 
we closed the office area down, and air samples were taken of 
that office, along with some particles that were taken from a 
disk that had fallen from the pipe wrappings . 



32 

The air sample was submitted to San Joaquin 
Environmental, Incorporated, and the results came back which 
were less — resulted less than the hazardous concerns that 
would indicate that this was asbestos . 

We notified the union of this. Yes, the pipes were, 
again, resealed by the maintenance person that was an expert in 
this field. He assured the union and myself and the 
administration that there was no asbestos in that area. He also 
documented a memo to that effect. 

That was like in October of 1991, if I remember 
correctly. 

About March the following year, 1992, the union did 
submit a grievance in respect to the same issue, that there was 
asbestos raining on them, on the desk, and what have you. 

I again responded to the area to see for myself again 
what it looked like. And from a layman's eye who's not familiar 
with haz-mat materials, and what have you, it did appear that 
there was a lot of particles on the desk, and what have you. 

And I was again assured and reassured by the 
maintenance staff that this was in fact not asbestos. 

What I did, in good faith, based on the fact that the 
concern was ongoing, even though we had results that there was 
not asbestos air-borne in this immediate area, I had the 
maintenance people cost out what it could cost to have the pipes 
encapsulated. And I wanted for them to cost out what it would 
cost for not only Mariposa yard office, but the Calaveras yard 
office also. 

The cost was very minimal . It came back that it was 



33 

approximately $367 to encapsulate both offices. So, I 
immediately authorized that they do this immediately. 

This was like on the 16th. It was completed on the 
18th, or somewhere along those lines. Within three days. That 
was in March of '92. 

Subsequent to that, we took another air sample of the 
office, and secure the office, took another air sample, and it 
came out also below the standard. 

We shared this with the union. They agreed there 
were no more concerns . 

When this picketing occurred, I was not aware of the 
issues on hand. And I was pretty surprised to hear that it was 
asbestos when, in fact, the pipes had been encapsulated prior to 
the informational picketing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Officer Coke, the sort of gossip 
you hear, which at least in this building is generally 
inaccurate, but I raise it for your response to the comments you 
hear that are something like this . 

That when Ms. Garcia was placed in Sierra, one of the 
controversial and early decisions she made was to redistribute 
holidays, and overtime, and so on, among staff. That there was 
a perception that certain favored, kind of the good old boys at 
the institution, had a disproportionate amount of those benefits 
running their direction. And that when she tried to make it 
fairer, that that's what provoked opposition in the unit and 
subsequently. 

Does any of that ring a bell at all with you? 

MR. COKE: No, sir. And I'd like to tell you that at 



34 

the time she was here, with my seniority numbers, I probably 
would have supported that because I would have reaped the 
benefits . 

The reality is — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You don't remember changes — 

MR. COKE: — that did not occur. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — like that, or discussions of 
that happening at Sierra? 

MR. COKE: Not that I recall, sir, no, sir. 

I'd like to point out that although Ms. Garcia did 
ultimately encapsulate completely the asbestos covered pipes, 
the day we went out on the picket, they were not completely — 
as a matter of fact, they were not encapsulated. 

Now, I understand that you have some documentation 
that states otherwise. But I would tell you, sir, I could 
easily back-date any document that I chose, but it takes a 
little bit more effort to come up here and look you dead square 
in the eye and say that is not true. 

Now, the California State Employees Association, 
ATEM, ASME, all agreed with us. 

One of the things that was brought besides the 
pictures that we lay out here, I've got a signature board here 
that has over 150 signatures of people that participated on the 
line. They knew that someday their names would be right here 
before you guys . And most people are afraid to confront their 
boss . 

If I stood here and told you I wasn't as nervous as a 
cat on a hot tin roof, I ' d be lying. Because she's my ex-boss; 



35 

she could be my boss again someday. 

But the reality is what's right is right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 

MR. COKE: And if I don't do this, I would be wrong. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: From my understanding, if she 
isn't confirmed, she's going to be sent back. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I made that up. Probably I 
shouldn't joke that way. I apologize. 

MR. COKE: Senator, you need to hear it. If you send 
Rosie back to Sierra, I'd be delighted to work with her today. 
I have no problem with that . 

I simply have a problem with certain judgments that 
she has shown. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Yes, grab a mike. 

MR. HERNANDEZ: I'm Chuck Hernandez, and I was the 
chief of plant operations for Warden Garcia at the time. 

When these issues came out, Warden Garcia made sure 
that I took care of them, and they were wrapped. 

I think what Mr. Coke is talking about, the last 
encapsulation was with plastic vinyl liner, but they were always 
wrapped. Any issue that came out, I talked to Mr. Coke and 
assured him that we were wrapping them and that the Warden was 
aware of it. 

This was one of the big issues as far as that, to 
make sure they were wrapped. And she personally had me meet her 
there every time. 



36 

Like I said, we took air samples. Everything was 
fine. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

Senator. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I've been puzzled both days of the 
hearings . 

These things, we talk about policy and judgment. But 
I find that the biggest differences are on the facts. 

Here's a guy who did the job. There's a fellow who 
says, "No, it wasn't done at that time." 

Those are facts . They ' re not opinions , and that 
puzzles me. 

Now, on the overview we got, it showed two or three 
other examples . 

Issue number one, this part of the 20: the use of a 
37 millimeter gas gun as a primary weapon in housing units. 
CCPOA says that its in-service training book incorrectly lists 
that gun as the weapon of choice. 

Ms. Garcia says that's not even mentioned in the 
training book. 

Now, it's a book. It either has it in there or it 
doesn't have it in there. Why should we be wrestling with this, 
without even having the benefit of the book that we can see for 
ourselves? 

The next one: recent training teaches a 37 
millimeter is a primary weapon. It's also been indicated in 
training that the shotgun will become the weapon of choice. 
There's nothing in the DOM to indicate either. 



37 

Comment, the 37 millimeter is the weapon of choice in 
non-life-threatening situations in housing units. Final 
regulations are being drafted. The shotgun mentioned by CCPOA 
is the type that shoots bean bags, and they, too, are nonlethal . 

That's quite a difference. And all the way through, 
it seems that one side is saying, "This is so, " and the other 
side is saying, "It's absolutely not so." 

I find it difficult, you know, to find out what's 
really going on. And I'm not looking at policy decisions here. 

She's been attacked. I was very sensitive to the 
asbestos issue. We've been very concerned about that up here. 

Now we hear she kind of ignored it; didn't seem to be 
upset about it; didn't do much, if anything. 

She says it was encapsulated by a certain date, 
period. 

Somehow, we ought to figure out a way to resolve the 
facts in this before we reach a conclusion as to judgment. Do 
you know what I mean? 

MR. COKE: Senator, within the packet that you have 
from Sierra Conservation Center, because I can only speak to 
Sierra, you'll find in the body of that, my job steward, Officer 
Kirkendale speaks very clearly to numerous band-aid approaches. 

When they did the band-aid approach for a very short 
time, it was encapsulated. So, that would be an accurate 
representation on their part. 

Our issue is, finalize. Our issue was doing the job 
correctly. And until you have the opportunity to do that, 
remove the officers from the area in jeopardy. 



38 

I have no issue with whether or not maintenance 
attempted to do the job. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You're claiming it wasn't completed? 

MR. COKE: That is correct, sir. 

It's not a matter of: I said this, and they said 
that. It's not a matter of that at all. 

The documentation that we provided to you speaks very 
clearly to their attempts. I have no issue with that 
whatsoever. 

Our issue is simple, until they were able to do it 
correctly, please remove the staff from the area in jeopardy. 

MS. GARCIA: May I address that, Senator? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, would you please clarify that? 

MS. GARCIA: Yes. 

The staff were removed from this area. They were 
told not to enter while they were encapsulating these pipes . 

I personally went over there and found some staff 
inside that I had to remove. They claimed that they were not 
concerned, including Mr. Coke. I told them that they would have 
to abide by this until the job was completed. That area was 
secured. 

Air samples were taken, and we have copies of the air 
sample results, which were below, again, standard. There was no 
concern to asbestos . 

At that point we again opened up the office. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, there you are again. It's a 
conflict of the facts. That's what the jury decides in a jury 
trial. They don't decide the law; they decide the facts. 



39 

MS. GARCIA: May I state also for the record that the 
grievance was dated 3/11/92. This job was completed on the 
18th; the 16th or the 18th of March, which was just within days 
later. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Well, she says it was completed on 
the 18th. You're saying it's not complete yet. 

MR. COKE: That's incorrect, sir. It is complete 
today. 

We're talking — if we're talking in that time zone, 
which is 1992, the time tables that she is mentioning are 
incorrect. 

If you'll take a good look at that grievance, her 
response of the 11th denies the grievance. Now, why the heck 
would you tell me no and then go do it anyway? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Maybe she can answer that. 

MS. GARCIA: I didn't hear the question. Could you 
repeat the question? 

MR. COKE: I said, Rosie, what I said was, is on the 
11th, you told me no, you would not deal with it; there is no 
asbestos . 

And yet you're now saying, on the 18th, several days 
later, you had it completely done? 

Why would you tell me no, and then do the job? 

MS. GARCIA: What I said was, there was no asbestos 
concerns . 

We again went out, on your insistence, to the area. 
And that's when I determined, made the determination to take a 
look at what it would cost to do this in good faith so that this 



40 

issue would go away. And the cost was very minimal, $367, or 
something to that effect. 

So, I made the decision to go ahead and do that even 
though there was no concern for asbestos . 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Senator Petris, anything further? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes, if I can find it. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Should we go on to another witness? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Next witness. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I'll come back to it, if I may. 

MS. GARCIA: May I say something for the record? 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Just a moment. Let's try and stay 
in order here. We're going back and forth on this one issue, 
and the Senator has some questions, and we'll get back to it. 

Do you have testimony, sir? 

MR. PURVIANCE: Yes, I do. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Go ahead. 

MR. PURVIANCE: My name is Sam Purviance. I'm a 
correctional officer at Sierra Conservation Center, and I'm also 
Vice President of the local chapter there, and I was during the 
tenure of Ms. Garcia at Sierra Conservation Center while she was 
Warden, or Acting Warden, and while she was our Chief Deputy 
Warden. 

What I had to say today happened in the top 
disciplinary committee meeting hearing held in the 
Administrative Segregation Building. 

And what happened was, an inmate was brought before 
the committee with two disciplinaries . One disciplinary had to 



41 

do with a fight. He got rolled from camp. Got rolled up means 
he was transferred back to the main institution from a satellite 
camp, which was Base Line, which is real close to the 
institution. 

He got in a fight with several inmates, and we later 
found out he was being pressured by those inmates there. And he 
had to fight and get out of camp before he was made to things he 
didn't want to do. 

During the process of sending an inmate back to the 
main institution from camp, what officers at the camp do is 
inventory. They collect and inventory the inmate's property 
that he keeps in a locked locker that he has the combination to. 
Other inmates don't have the combination to that, and officers 
have a key to that in order to get in. 

When the officers unlocked the locker and began to 
inventory the property, there were several live ammunition 
rounds found in that locker. And he was immediately written 
another disciplinary report, besides the one he got originally 
sent back to the institution for, fighting, and it was for 
having live rounds . 

I recall that they were .22 rounds, Rem fire 
cartridge. And the only I didn't write down was whether there 
was two or three, because I can't remember exactly how many 
there were. I just remember there was more than one. 

During the ICC committee, this was the fall of '92, 
while Ms. Garcia was the Chief Deputy Warden, and this committee 
is chaired by either the Warden or his designee. And a lot of 
times it was very common for the Chief Deputy Warden to take his 



42 

place there as chair of the committee. 

And Ms. Garcia was chairing the committee that day, 
and I was the escort officer who brought the inmates into the 
room where the committee was being held, seated the inmate, and 
stood there and made sure he didn ' t make any funny moves , 
because the committee was determining what was going to happen 
to him. 

During the course of this, Ms. Garcia and the 
committee upheld what they call affirmation of credit loss. The 
inmate was disciplined by taking so many good time work credits 
from him. And during that process, the live ammunition found in 
his property was totally dismissed. 

We don't usually argue in committee. And it was 
never really my place to speak, because we had the Warden, or 
Chief Deputy Warden, and other things, but they did appreciate 
input . 

So, after the inmate was excused, I asked the 
committee, and Ms. Garcia specifically, why live ammunition 
would be dismissed, especially when you come to a Rem fire 
cartridge. 

And in my report, I wrote to you that with her vast 
experience in being a leader of a security squad, who — they do 
a lot of searching, and I've imagined they have found what we 
call in Corrections a zip gun, or a homemade inmate gun that's 
made right there in premises that has the ability to fire 
cartridges. And a Rem fire cartridge being the easiest to fire, 
you don't need any particular spot to strike, that it was 
amazing to me that it would be that easily dismissed. 



43 

And I was told in the committee by Ms. Garcia that I 
was not part of that decision making process of what to dismiss 
and not to dismiss against inmates. 

After the committee broke up, I was still somewhat 
shocked that something that dangerous, especially in camp, and 
now we know the inmate had been pressured by inmates into 
fighting or doing whatever they wanted to do, so he fought, with 
that ammunition at his disposal, he could have used that at his 
own free will. He could have used that — there's forestry 
staff in camp; there's correctional staff in camp; there's other 
inmates in camp. He could have effected whatever he wanted to 
effect on whoever he wanted to affect it. 

And we also have a possibility of a walk-away at 
camp. There's not fences and armed personnel there to keep them 
in, and he could have affected that on the public, whatever 
he needed to do. If he needed a vehicle, he could make his own 
zip gun out of a piece of pipe and whatever he wanted to strike 
the Rem fire with. 

And I chose this example to what I thought was a 
pretty blatant example of the types of decisions that affect 
correctional staff that come from the top. 

I talked to people who used to work the ICC committee 
with me, and one's now a CC II instead of a CC I, and some of 
them have promoted. And I told them what I was involved with 
when I got back Tuesday to work. 

And they said that they had to eat a lot of things in 
committee that they wished they didn't have to as far as the 
inmate disciplinary process, where things were drastically 



44 

reduced or dismissed. 

I think that ' s what places the ultimate burden on 
probably this Committee to decide if Ms. Garcia has the ability 
to make those decisions and make good decisions. And I think 
those do affect the staff, the public. They affect all our 
safety. 

And I don ' t see how someone could make those 
decisions and dismiss it with the stroke of a pen in ICC, where 
they could just write, "dismissed". 

Of course, the record disappears. There's no more 
record of the incident because it's not placed in the inmate's 
file; it's not forwarded anywhere. It goes away. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Let's hear from Ms. Garcia on this 
issue. 

MS. GARCIA: Yes. The issue doesn't go away. If a 
115 is in fact dismissed, there is a 128-G chrono that is 
documented, and the results of this committee are documented in 
that document. It's placed in an inmate's file forever and a 
day. 

I became aware of this issue yesterday. We didn't 
have a name. Today we've got the name of Brown. 

We did call the institution to see if, by chance, the 
inmate may still be there, but Brown is a very common name. 
Without any number or anything, it's kind of hard to pull up the 
documents . 

However, I don't recall this instance. And Mr. 
Purviance is correct; these things can happen if an inmate is 
found with this type of explosive devices. 



45 

But I have no recollection, and I don't know why I 
would have dismissed a charge of possession of ammunition. It's 
beyond me that I would ever do that. 

The classification committee is a committee — 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Are you aware of the identity of this 
inmate? 

MR. PURVIANCE: I recall at the time I was incensed. 
I wrote his name down; I wrote his number down in my notebook. 

Like I said in the report, it was somewhere in the 
fall of '92. I couldn't even give you a date, because I don't 
have the book. 

I remember Inmate Brown pretty well, because 
sometimes when you work closely with the inmates, you have to 
talk to them over a period of time, especially in Administrative 
Segregation. And he lived in Cell 126; it was right next to the 
shower. 

I really don't have any other identifying thing that 
I could name about him. 

SENATOR LEWIS: When did you make this Committee, or 
the Committee staff, aware of this incident? 

MR. PURVIANCE: I was asked to write a report on this 
I believe it was Monday. 

SENATOR LEWIS: And you turned over the report on 
what date to Committee staff? 

MR. PURVIANCE: It was Monday evening when we FAXed 
it. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 



46 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Did ascertain, or did anybody, just 
how he got this ammunition? 

MR. PURVIANCE: That was part of what came down in 
ICC. 

As far as a true ascertaining of what happened, all 
we ever got was what the inmate said had happened. He said that 
being at camp, they go on fire line, and they find things on the 
fire line where they go out and they fight the fires. 

The practice for that is to come back and turn it 
into correctional staff. Anything, when you're coming off the 
fire line, that you have that you know is dangerous contraband, 
you turn into correctional staff. 

I recall at the time discussing the case with 
Counselor Lewis at work, that there had been a several week 
period go by since this particular camp had been out on a fire. 
And the inmate ' s story in the committee was that he had 
forgotten to turn it in. And it just got mixed up in his 
property . 

And I found it even then and even now very difficult 
to believe that an inmate would be in possession of ammunition 
and forget he had it . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Maybe he thought it was a postage 
stamp. 

How many rounds? 

MR. PURVIANCE: I can't recall specifically if there 
was two or three . I know there was more than one . 

I tried to call the officer that wrote it, who was 



47 

Officer Gordon at Base Line Camp, and he remember the incident, 
and he couldn't help me with any more specifics, a name and a 
number and stuff. 

MR. TRISTAN: Mr. Chairman, my name is David Tristan 
I'm the Deputy Director for Institutions Division. 

We just found the chronos on Inmate Brown. His E- 
number is 97 376. They're going to be FAXing the information to 
my office, and we'll get it to the Committee. 

On January 2nd, '92, the committee of which Rosie 
Garcia was not a part of, because the chrono indicates who the 
committee members were and who the chairperson was, assessed a 
181-day credit loss and a Security Housing Unit term. 

On January 30th of that same year, he went back to 
committee, and the committee upheld that credit loss and SHU 
term. 

In February 27th, the CSR who endorses all of the 
committee actions and the transfers between institutions — 
because wardens have no control of transfers of inmates between 
institutions; it's controlled out of my office in Headquarters 
— confirmed the 181-day credit loss, but declined to send the 
inmate to the Security Housing Unit. 

Ms. Garcia, according to all of the written 
documentation that we have, was not involved in any of the 
decision making on Inmate Brown. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: All right, thank you. 

If you receive those documents, please forward them 
to the Committee . 

Senator Petris . 



48 

SENATOR PETRIS: It's the same old thing, a conflict 
of the facts. 

I understand they're dumping all this on Ms. Garcia. 
Now the head of the unit there says she wasn't there present; 
she didn't participate. And she says she doesn't remember that 
incident at all. 

I don ' t know why there ' s such a disparity between the 
two sides on who was where. 

Are you contending that she was present at this 
committee meeting? 

MR. PURVIANCE: I didn't even get a job change into 
Segregation Unit until March or April of that year. I wasn't 
there in January, or whenever this Mr. Brown was, the E Number 
97376. 

I said I don't recall what his CDC number was, but I 
know that we also had another incident where an inmate had 
escaped from Base Line and went down to Copperopolis, and there 
was also ammunition involved in that one when he took some from 
a house. And I don't know if it's that Mr. Brown or a different 
Mr. Brown that we're speaking of. 

I know that I couldn ' t speak to anything that 
happened to Segregation Unit in the committee in January of that 
year, because I wasn't assigned to that unit. But I know what 
happened later in the fall. 

SENATOR PETRIS: You were on the committee later? 

MR. PURVIANCE: I was an escort officer for the 
committee during the fall of that year. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was this incident discussed in the 



49 

fall? 

MR. PURVIANCE: Yes, it was. The incident was 
discussed in the fall of that year, and it was an initial 
affirmation of credit loss, which would have been the 
committee's decision whether to dismiss it, uphold it, or send 
it back with some variance of penalty. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So this 181-day removal of credit, 
whatever it's called, was the overruled by Ms. Garcia? 

MR. PURVIANCE: I can't speak to that case in 
particular because I wasn't the escorting officer at the time. 

What I'm trying to tell this Committee is that it's a 
different inmate. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Oh, I see. Maybe we can call Mr. 
Brown in and ask him, all 24 Mr. Browns. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. PURVIANCE: All 50 of them. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Who's the next witness? 

MR. NOVEY: Senator Beverly, Don Novey. 

I'd like to do a summation here so we can get down 
the road. 

I humbly appreciate your patience here. I think this 
is a testing grounds for Senator Lewis, probably, his first time 
out . 

I think Louis Brandeis probably put it best, and I'd 
like to paraphrase. You know, that light creates growth. 
Unfortunately, as Senator Petris so aptly put it, we have some 
problems here in reference to credibility. 

I'd like to correct a statement that was made the 



50 

other day. I went back and checked our records since 1980, and 
I've been President of this fortuitous organization since that 
date, we've opposed three individuals for warden, for everyone's 
edification. 

Now, Ms. Garcia most recently stated, Monday, that 
she was in charge of Segregation at Pelican Bay. There's three 
issues I have placed before you today. They're late, and I'm 
not going to discuss those issues. I think the Senators should 
review them themselves . 

Judge Thelton Henderson just ruled on his decision 
Tuesday night, and there's some problems we have at that 
facility and we've had historically. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Excuse me. 

You mentioned him the other day. 

MR. NOVEY: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR PETRIS: He's going to rule on — 

MR. NOVEY: He has made his ruling, sir, Tuesday 
night. I have it, part of that ruling before you. 

I don't want to go into the actual issues, because I 
haven't had a full review of them. There's several areas in 
here that I've xed out for your review in dealing with 
Ms. Garcia 's working within that facility. 

I don't think it's right for Ms. Garcia or anyone 
else in this room, for me to put a denigrating attack on her 
without her reviewing the documentation as well. So, I feel 
very strongly about that. 

Maybe you'll look through it. It has some quotes by 
Ms. Garcia in there, and it might give you some options in 



51 

reference to what her correctional attitude is. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Do any of these refer to that 
decision, the court decision? 

MR. NOVEY: Yes, sir. But I just think it's — 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is your group pleased with the 
decision? 

MR. NOVEY: I think it was somewhat bifurcated. It's 
the traditional split-the-baby-in-half and move on with life, 
sir. Federal court intervention. 

I think they reinforced Rhoades v. Chapman f '81, that 
the state can run their facilities, but there are 8th and 14th 
Amendment violations that they ' re strongly concerned about . And 
I think the Director will be addressing those. 

But reference to that era when Ms. Garcia was in 
charge of Segregation, I think, you ought to review for your 
own, and I'm not here to attack Ms. Garcia without her reviewing 
the documentation, too. I think it's the only right way to do 
that. 

I'd just like to sum up and get off the podium here, 
and then you render your decision. 

In summation, we think it's less than professional to 
re-open a facility after an officer's had their face or throat 
slashed. I've been in this business for 25 years. I've never 
been around it where, immediately, within that 2 4 -hour period, 
where you re-open a facility. 

The thing concerning the ammunition, whether it was a 
cartridge under a trash can or Rem fire at Sierra, the one thing 
that I'm sensitized, and true professionals in this field are, 



52 

that the pop of the zip can kill an officer, and it has in the 
past. I'm quite sensitized to those areas. 

And I think that, being in this business for 25 
years, there's some difficulty, at least from my perspective, 
why things weren't acted on more quickly. 

I address those issues. I am a former watch 
commander, however short it was. But in my lifetime in this 
profession, I've always admired the management team that could 
operate independently and quickly of Central Office on crisis 
type scenarios . 

The asbestos, the key we're all missing here is that 
the complaint was registered early on. All the management team 
— this is a test of morale here, darn it — all the management 
team had to do was move that staff area. That was the request. 
And I don't think anything would have been further. 

And it went beyond that . You had every union in that 
institution. I know for the good conservatives in here, that 
might not mean a lot, but let's bifurcate the issue again. 

The concern of the line were paramount. And I 
personally went out and walked that picket line, and very rarely 
do I do. Very rarely do I even get the chance to testify in 
front of this august Committee. 

But there ' s something wrong here . 

If you want to confirm Ms. Garcia, I will guarantee 
you, our men and women will work with the lady. We're not going 
to be failing from that end, because we cannot afford to have a 
5,000-bed prison go down. By approving this person today, we're 
taking that chance. 



53 

These massive facilities are unparalleled. Ms. 
Garcia could probably run a facility of a larger — I mean a 
smaller magnitude, probably. 

I, as representing these men and women, cannot take 
that chance from my position, nor can these other individuals in 
this organization, of having a less than competent individual 
secure the facility. And we've had several indications of that 
here today and as of Monday. 

And there ' s repeated statements throughout this 
process, and humbly, Senator Petris, I feel bad about it because 
there's things back and forth, and you have to make the ultimate 
decision and refer it to the Senate Floor. 

I feel bad about the facts not being totally right in 
one way or another, and we've had more difficult hearings in 
reference to the field of corrections. You're fully cognizant 
of that, sir, probably more so than anyone in this room. 

But when are we going to make a final decision that 
it's a tough job for a Director to determine what a warden 
should be? We don't even have a command college, and maybe 
that's another recommendation I'd like to move, that we need a 
command college in this profession. 

I don't want to build, and neither does anyone else 
in this room, more prisons than we have universities, darn it. 
I think we'd go in the wrong direction, and we've got to bring 
these things to a halt. 

But to have management, with its obfuscation, and 
unfortunately this infantry [sic] towards our institutional 
setting, we have no other choice but to oppose Ms. Garcia for 



54 

confirmation. 

And it hurts me. It hurts anybody to attack a fellow 
human being, but this is from a professional sense and not a 
personal sense. 

I strongly urge this Committee to review how she ' s 
handled her command presence. And Senator Ayala, and Senator 
Beverly, and I know Senator Petris has been in the big war, 
before World War II, or was it World War II, sir? 

SENATOR PETRIS: World War I in my case. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. NOVEY: I know you were in Greece, saving the 
entourage of the commies coming from the other side. 

But that's what this boils down to in reference to 
our position. It has nothing to do personally with Ms. Garcia. 
She ' s probably a competent manager in many areas , but command 
presence on the line — and this is the toughest job for any 
administrator to handle. 

We've had some good Hispanic female warden candidates 
pass this Committee. We've never opposed them. 

I'm receiving this message from five chapters of this 
organization, not just three; five. That's unparalleled and 
unheard of in our organization. 

However you vote, I still wish Ms. Garcia well in her 
future endeavors in the field of corrections . 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 

Let me inquire, is there anyone else who wishes to 
testify in opposition? You had your hand up. Do you want to 
testify? 



55 

MR. LOZANO [FROM THE AUDIENCE]: The problem with it 
is, on Tuesday, as you may know, there was many people who 
wanted to testify but because of the time, those that were in 
support of it did not have that opportunity. 

I hope we're not going to be running out of time now. 
I still would like to be able to testify in support. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: How many wish to testify today, one 
way or the other? Just the two. 

All right, you come forward, then we'll give Ms. 
Garcia a chance to make any comments she wishes, and then we'll 
see what the Committee wants to do. 

MR. LOZANO: Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, 
my name is Hector Lozano. For the record, the spelling is 
L-o-z-a-n-o. I'm a Correctional Counselor II at the Sierra 
Conservation Center. 

I've been a dues-paying member, active, in the 
California Correctional Peace Officers Association for 13 years. 

I have to say that I'm somewhat bothered by the 
process as I've seen it happen here over the last two days, 
because there's something to be said for accuracy of testimony. 
And I can appreciate Senator Petris ' s comments about things 
don't seem to jive. 

Well, I can assure you, they don't jive. 

The notion that CCPOA represents 20-plus thousand 
members is certainly a true one; however, at the bargaining 
table, not in front of you today. 

The notion that Mr. Coke and Mr. Purviance represent 
employees at SCC, to be exact there are 726 CCPOA members, I 



56 

think is also not correct. There was reference made to 100 
people participating in an informational picket. That's 
approximately one-seventh of what is — of the membership. 

I don't recall at any one time that we raised our 
hand or signed a ballot, marked a ballot, in terms of who we'd 
support for warden or not support . I think that working at 
Sierra Conservation Center for 10 years, I have a very good 
gauge as to what morale is like; I have a very good gauge as to 
what sentiments are like; I have a very good gauge as to how it 
is to work with different administrative staff. 

I've been there, and there 've been approximately five 
or six wardens since I've been there. For whatever reason, 
Ms. Garcia seemed to be the target of what I regard as some 
personality clashes. 

However, not to dwell on that, I want to go ahead and 
dwell on some positive things that I've been able to experience 
while working for Ms. Garcia. 

Ms. Garcia 's presence, first of all, is still felt at 
Sierra Conservation Center, and I say that because I had an 
instance where I did not have faith in the administration or the 
administrative process, particularly equal employment 
opportunity process: how complaints were dealt with, those 
types of discrimination matters . And I shared those with 
Ms. Garcia upon her arrival, and Ms. Garcia informed me that, 
while she may also see that things don't always work the way we 
want to, to not get involved to make the place a better place to 
work is tantamount to complaining about our government, and then 
not going to the polls. 



57 

So, she encouraged me to get involved and to make my 
contribution, and I did that. As a result, I've seem some 
significant turn-around, not so much in the way things happen to 
come out many times, but I think a heightened understanding of 
what takes place. 

I've been able to share those thoughts and been able 
to mention Ms. Garcia by name to others that have had the same 
feeling, and we've been able to see a turn-around in their 
attitudes as well. It has been very positive, and I think this 
is the presence that I talked about that still exists at SCC on 
account of Ms. Garcia. 

Let me also mention, I'm also a member of CCWA, 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association. Throughout the 
hearings, I've been hearing — I've been listening to references 
about Ms. Garcia being a Hispanic, being a female, both from 
those who testified as well as some of the Legislators. 

With all due respect, I somewhat resent that notion 
that we are here today because she is a Hispanic or because she 
is a female. It is unfortunate that we're not looking at her 
in terms of her career. She has a very distinguished career of 
18-plus years. She is an accomplished administrator that I've 
been able to judge first-hand. She is very capable; she is very 
thoughtful. She is compassionate; she is fair. 

It's disturbing to see the process occur as it has 
been over the last few days and not be able to come up here and 
tell you that I've worked there, I've been there, and I know 
Rosie personally. And not because I know her personally, but I 
know what she is capable of doing. 



58 

It is truly unfortunate that you would have some 
other members of other unions come here and tell you that they 
represent this massive number of the majority, when in fact they 
actually represent a minority of those people at those 
facilities. They may represent them at the bargaining table for 
salary and benefits and so forth, but certainly they do not 
represent the sentiment of those employees at those facilities, 
at least not all employees. 

I just want to make it clear that it is more over the 
leadership that opposes Ms. Garcia as opposed to all the rank 
and file, and I think it's important to point that out. 

I have no more comments, but I am willing to answer 
any questions. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: You shouldn't be disturbed. You're 
having your opportunity to testify now. 

MR. LOZANO: Well, I think what I was disturbed by, I 
was disturbed by the way things happened to work. I think what 
I'm disturbed by, Senator, is that you had many employees here 
on Tuesday that would have been able to provide similar 
testimony, that worked directly for Ms. Garcia, who were not 
able to do that. 

What you did have, on the other hand, is, you had a 
handful of individuals that were able to, if you will, clobber 
Rosie and not — and equal time was not provided those many, 
great many, people who were here did not have that opportunity. 
I think that's what I mean by disturbing. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We also had a lot of written 
communication primarily in support, as I recall. 



59 

Is there one other witness? 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name 
is Martin Rodriguez. I am a correctional officer. I am 
personally working at Centinela. I am one of the employees who 
did came back to show 100 percent support for Ms. Garcia. 

I can't say any much because this gentleman here has 
said it all. I can't dispute his positions. 

However, the only thing I have to say is that I am 
also a member of the California Peace Officers Association, and 
I definitely don't share the same views. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you very much. 

Ms. Garcia, would you like to close with any 
comments? 

MS. GARCIA: Sure. 

I'd just like to say that it's not easy being a 
warden. There is no instructions that come with being a warden 
and running an institution and handling incidents. 

But I'm a participatory type of a manager, where I 
solicit input from my management staff, my supervisory, as well 
as line staff. As such, I feel that the decisions that I have 
made are the right ones . I do the right thing for the right 
reasons . 

I have led — I have trained and led staff through my 
career, through the war zones of Soledad and San Quentin, and 
done so effectively. 

I feel that I am an effective Warden and will 
continue to be one, and I thank you for this opportunity. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Thank you. 



60 

Any further questions of the witness? 

That concludes the hearing. I don't know what the 
Chairman's pleasure is. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just want to say that I agree with 
Senator Petris . The testimony has been so contradictory. I 
don't know why she's such a lightning rod to the CCPOA, but it 
appears to me that everything was rebutted to my satisfaction. 

Still, negative things keep coming up, and good 
things keep coming, so I am really confused about this issue. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: I'm prepared to act. I don't know 
what the wishes of the Committee are. 

Historically, if any one Member wants to hold it 
over, we do so. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to move that Ms. Garcia be 
confirmed for the position of Warden of Centinela. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: We have the motion recommending 
the Committee confirm. Any comment? 

Secretary will call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 



61 



Four to zero . 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Let's leave the roll open if 
Senator Lockyer wants to vote. 

Thank you all for your participation. 
[Thereupon the final vote for 
confirmation was 4-1, as Senator 
Lockyer ' s no vote was added 
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.7] 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
3:37 P.M. ] 

— ooOoo — 



62 

CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 



^y IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this / / day of January, 1995. 



n 




r N J, 
Shorthand Reporter 



266-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.75 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 

Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 266-R when ordering. 



HEARING 

SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 




STATE CAPITOL 

ROOM 113 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18,1995 
1:47 P.M. 



DCCUMBTMTS! HEPT. 

MAR 2 7 1995 

SAK FRANC i- .»0 
PUBLiC LIBRARY 



268-R 



SENATE RULES COMMITTEE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



HEARING 



STATE CAPITOL 
ROOM 113 
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1995 
1:47 P.M. 



Reported by: 



Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 



11 



APPEARANCES 

MEMBERS PRESENT 

SENATOR WILLIAM LOCKYER, Chair 

SENATOR ROBERT BEVERLY, Vice Chair 

SENATOR RUBEN AYALA 

SENATOR JOHN LEWIS 

SENATOR NICHOLAS PETRI S 

STAFF PRESENT 

CLIFF BERG, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

RICK ROLLENS, Consultant on Bill Referrals 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

ALSO PRESENT 

SANFORD C. SIGOLOFF, Member 
State Board of Education 

STEVEN G. BAKER, Member 
Board of Prison Terms 

GINA S. BERRY, Director and Staff Attorney 
Prisoners ' Rights Union 

KAREN STEWART 
Concerned Citizen 

RHODA RODGER 

Concerned Citizens for Prisoners 

CARAL A. HINES, Self 
JDL Legal Services 

KELLY RUDIGER, Executive Director 
Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau 

ROBERT N. RUGGLES, Commissioner 
Workers ' Compensation Appeals Board 

WILBERT L. SMITH, Ph.D., Member 
Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 



Ill 

INDEX 

Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees ; 

SANFORD C. SIGOLOFF, Member 

State Board of Education 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Challenges Facing Education in California .... 2 

Need for More Schools 3 

Automated Schools 4 

Challenges of Diversity in Educational System . . 5 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Superintendent's Ability to Select 

and Hire Staff 7 

Position on School Voucher Initiative 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Alternatives to Voucher System 13 

Forecast of Another Lost Generation 14 

Shrinking Revenue Base 15 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Attendance at Board Meetings 16 

Forecast of Second Year's Attendance 18 

Views on Contracting Out 19 

Charter Schools 20 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Privatization Schemes 20 

Wickes and Pension Funds 21 

Involvement with Human Experimentation 

with Radiation during Work with AEC 25 



IV 



INDEX (Continued^ 

Deliberate Exposure of Personnel to 

Measure Radiation Impacts 28 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Governor ' s Proposal to Eliminate 

Education Code and Teacher Tenure 29 

Telephonic Attendance at Board Meeting 30 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Comfort in Working as Member of Board of 

Directors Vs. Being CEO 32 

CEO Review Task Force and Idea Audit for 

Controller Davis 33 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Primary Activities 35 

Lecture Subjects at UCLA 35 

Motion to Confirm 36 

Committee Action 36 

STEVEN BAKER, Member 

Board of Prison Terms 37 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Fairness and Objectivity in Light of 

Family's Tragedy 38 

Toughest Decision during Tenure on Board 39 

Increase in Parole Revocations 40 

Number of Decisions Per Week 41 

Cases Where Governor Has Recommended 

Review 41 

Grounds for Changing Parole Date 42 

Witness in Support: 

GINA BERRY, Director and Staff Attorney 

Prisoners Rights Union 43 



INDEX (Continued^ 

Witness with Concerns; 

KAREN STEWART 

Concerned Citizen 44 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

RHODA RODGER 

Concerned Citizens for Prisoners 47 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Importance of Geographical Diversity on 

Board 49 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Geographic Relevance 49 

Statements by SENATOR PETRI S re: 

Appointing Authority Rests with Governor . . 51 

Conclusion Is too Broad 53 

Television Shows Disservice to Justice 

System 53 

Need for Governor to Hear Views of 

Informed People 55 

CARAL A. HINES, Self 

JDL Legal Services 56 

Witness in Support: 

KELLY RUDIGER, Executive Director 

Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau 57 

Motion to Confirm 58 

Committee Action 59 

ROBERT N. RUGGLES, Commssioner 

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board 59 

Background and Experience 59 

Motion to Confirm 61 

Committee Action 61 



VI 



INDEX (Continued) 

WILBERT L. SMITH, Ph.D., Member 

Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 62 

Background and Experience 62 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Divisive Issues while on School Board 63 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR NEWT RUSSELL ... 63 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Reputation of Being Divisive 65 

Discussion 66 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Policy Controversies during Tenure on 

Local School Board 67 

Meaning of "Investing in Employees" 68 

Number of Four-to-one Votes on Local Board .... 68 

Perspective on Student Fees 70 

Waste and/or Mismanagement in System 71 

Benefits of Contracting Out 73 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Voucher System 74 

Lack of Oversight with Voucher System 77 

How Voucher Could Enhance Public Education .... 79 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Support for Proposition 174 80 

Statements by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Running Public Education like a Business 82 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Members on Board Who Publicly Endorsed 

Proposition 174 86 



Vll 



INDEX (Continued) 

Discussion re: Endorsement of Voucher System 

vs. Membership on Board of Governors 87 

Statement of Intent by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER 89 

Response by DR. SMITH 90 

Questions by SENATOR PETRIS re: 

Reason for Re-election Defeat to Local 

School Board 92 

Motion to Confirm 95 

Committee Action 95 

Termination of Proceedings 96 

Certificate of Reporter 97 



P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 
— 00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We want to go on to Item Number 
Three in your file on confirmations. Mr. Sigoloff is the first 
question before us. 

Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: How do you do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you'll take a seat, if you wish 
to begin with any kind of opening statement, we always invite 
that. 

There probably are numerous questions from Members , 
but it would be appropriate if you wish to. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: This is my first experience in this 
process, so I'm here to serve you. 

I note that there were some letters of objection. 
I'm pleased to answer those in my behalf when the occasion 
arises . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sir, at some point, after whatever 
comment you would wish and questions are posed, we'll ask for 
support and opposition testimony, and then give you an 
opportunity to comment or respond to anything said. 

MR . S IGOLOFF : I'm here . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything that you want to start 



with? 



here. 



MR. SIGOLOFF: No. I welcome the opportunity to be 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you would, perhaps, begin with 
some comment about the challenges facing education in 



California. I know you did extensive work a year or two ago to 
prepare yourself to be a knowledgeable person in that policy 
domain. 

What are your conclusions and thoughts about what we 
need to do in California? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, first of all, as your record 
shows, my most recent experience in education is as a professor 
at UCLA. 

When the Governor asked me to consider the interim 
position of Superintendent of Public Education, I agreed to do 
that if I had a period of time to do my own due diligence. And 
I had the opportunity to talk with many of the Members of the 
Senate and the Assembly, spend time in the field, a lot of time 
with Arthur Anderson and their School of the Future, Frank 
Newman, Rand Corporation, teachers in general, PTA, and LEARN. 
And made a fairly well-rounded view of what both Senators and 
Assembly thought was going on, and at the same time, what 
teachers thought was going on. A lot of time with the 
Governor's budget people in terms of the deficit funding, and 
spent time with material publicly available from Mr. Riley's 
office . 

And my general conclusion, which I reported back to 
the Governor, is that, as in many instances, change is 
necessary; it was a question of how. And to what degree could 
the state afford the change. 

And I should add to my opening statement that I did 
have the opportunity to meet with various teacher unions . 

The impression that I had was that the state had gone 



through a very, very blissful period of highly educated people 
who had moved its economy along very well. The Summit, I think, 
properly presented the problems of the future in terms of the 
shortage of schools, and the demographic changes of the 
population, and also the urgency to keep up with technology. 

So, I think I started my journey to this meeting with 
you as prepared as I could be, recognizing that I am not 
unemployed; that I am on a number of boards, and that I teach 
full-time at UCLA, plus run my own business. 

I believe, in direct answer to your question, a 
certain sense of urgency for the kind of thing that is in 
motion. I'm delighted to see that Delaine has that same view, 
and I'm concerned that we get into lock-step from the Department 
of Education with the State Board and the people who pass the 
laws to make sure we can make some rather rapid progress in the 
next five years . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mentioned three areas. Just 
to draw you out a little bit more, the shortage of schools, the 
change in technology, and diversity. 

What do we do to try to make more schools? How do we 
do that? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I'd probably suggest to you that since 
the general obligation bonds didn't pass, there must be some 
misunderstanding between the people who vote and the goals of 
the people here in Sacramento, or a sense of distrust, or a lack 
of organization or points. 

Clearly, without that money, we're not going to build 
900 new schools, and we're not going to deal with the population 



density as presented to us by the Summit. 

Secondly, I think there is a lot of urgency in 
recognizing the relationship between the parents and the 
teacher, the arrival of the charter school and its perspective 
change, and the potential of the return of "Son of Voucher" and 
its impact on the ability to choose how your child gets 
educated. 

And there ' s also the need for the teacher to have 
more freedom to do what he or she needs to do, which means 
somewhat automate the school system, which really hasn't been 
automated in perhaps 30 to 50 years. 

So, I think it's a broad spectrum. It's a question 
of priority and who sets it. It's also a question of funding. 
It's also a question of new laws. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's with respect to the school 
shortage problem or broader? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I think the general question is how do 
you deliver quality education as expected by the citizens of 
California. 

I can't speak to the issue of school shortages, other 
than have been enumerated, and you don't build them without 
money. So, somehow along the line, there has to be some 
appropriation mechanism that's satisfactory to the public. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you mean by the failure to 
automate? How would a school look if you did automate? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, you know, American industry is 
in the position it's in today because of changes. It recognizes 
the ability to change, and it has the desire to change. 



The technology is exponential at this time. Not all 
of our schools are even equipped for computers . Or let ' s call 
it personal assistance, record keeping, communication on whether 
students are present or not present, emergency actions. A 
number of activities that require school administrative time can 
be automated, and many schools are attempting to do that within 
a very limited budget and some cases, no computers. 

The second issue, of course, is the revolution in 
education is changing dramatically the need for textbooks and 
textbook updating. They may well be CD ROMs, or they may be 
read off of computer disks. 

Most of the schools that I visited were not wired for 
anything. And those schools that were, were perhaps two or 
three years behind the technology of group education. 

That is not to suggest that what is being delivered 
is inadequate. It's a question of whether that delivery system 
will be effective in five to eight years. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would you address the 
challenges of diversity in our educational system? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: If you're speaking to the issue of a 
single language in education, or just the issue of opportunism 
for a common basis? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Both. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: We had a very excellent discussion on 
the ability to have English taught to people who did not have an 
understanding of a second language. Presentations made to the 
Board at the last meeting last week were outstanding, and the 
continuity between knowing a mother tongue language and the 



ability to make transpositions. 

So, I think there's a lot of basic research going on 
as to the methodology of teaching one or 90 variant languages we 
have in school systems . I think the material presented to us 
suggests that if you're fluent in the mother tongue, you have a 
higher priority of transliteration into English, and a higher 
priority for education in a second language than if you didn't. 
So, that puts some stress on the home and its ability to teach 
the fundamentals of the mother language, and secondly, to the 
school system to recognize that type of teaching. 

Getting technology, technology requires an integrated 
effort from curriculum and development, and disposition, 
education, and retraining of teachers, to a cost of keeping up 
with that kind of activity. There, I think, there has to be a 
very strong push within the system for funding that, even if 
it's on an experimental basis. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Separate from the language 
question, just your general thoughts about the tensions and 
consequences of racial and ethnic diversity in our state, which 
is a growing phenomenon. What's the appropriate role for 
schools and educational leaders to help address those problems? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I don't think it ' s a new 
phenomena for our era. During the Second World War, may father 
was major in the Medical Corps and I lived in the south. The 
south had all kinds of fractionation, and probably one of the 
lowest forms of fractionation was to be white Army trash. 

But if educational opportunities are made available, 
of there is a thrust by the parents — 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were an officer's son. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: My father was an officer, and I was an 
officer in the Korean War. 

But the question that you've asked me to address is: 
can it be done? I think the answer is yes, it can be done, but 
it ' s a relationship between a community that wants an educated 
population, the capacity of the teacher to reach out to the 
parent, and the ability for the school system to design programs 
from K through 12 or 14 that will make a better functioning 
citizen in our community. 

And obviously, we all know we have gangs and we have 
inner cities, but most people basically believe in the American 
dream and want an education. And it's our responsibility, I 
believe, to make sure they get a chance for it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I've got it started here. Now, 
jump in any time, friends. Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a couple questions for the 
gentleman here. 

Were you present at a recent meeting when the new 
Superintendent of Instruction requested that she be allowed to 
hire her staff, and you people refused to give her that 
authority? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Let me speak to what I think your 
question is . 

There was a meeting of the State Board last week. 
Prior to that time, the issue of the new appointees came up, and 
the authority for those appointees as viewed by the Board, 
interpreting the legal actions that had occurred with the prior 



8 

Superintendent . 

There was an intense discussion on that and 
interpretation, and I think the resolution was met for both 
sides that, if the State Board agreed to having a personnel 
committee, that it would be possible for that committee to work 
with Ms . Eastin to give her both the opportunity to select those 
people who needed review and those that did not need review, and 
at the same time, make sure that she had the opportunity to make 
a full evaluation of all the people who were resident there, and 
had the authority to change them as she saw fit. 

I can't answer your question any more directly than 
that, because I arrived at about 10:00 o'clock, after the closed 
session meeting, and that could have been brought up in the 
closed session meeting. 

SENATOR AYALA: But your understanding is that the 
rationale for refusing to allow the new Superintendent of 
Instruction to select her staff was that you wanted her to 
evaluate the existing staff? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: No, no. I perhaps have not been 
clear. 

The precedent discussion that dealt with her four 
appointees and her other staff was something that occurred 
before I attended the meeting. 

The resolution of how to deal with that was to be 
cooperative with her on her recommendation, and also to 
encourage her to review those people who were in residence when 
she took office. 

It's my understanding that she will be making 



recommendations, I think, through the personnel committee to the 
State Board on what I would call friendly terms. 

SENATOR AYALA: Will she allowed to select her top 
staff without the Board interfering with that? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I can't speak for the Board. 

SENATOR AYALA: For yourself. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: She's a duly elected officer — 

SENATOR AYALA: That's right. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: -- who, by my definition of corporate 
law, is the CEO. And her job is to provide support personnel 
for her who will do the job that she's empowered and responsible 
to do. 

And I hope that will be one that everybody is very 
pleased with and proud of as her first term is over. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm not sure you answered my 
question. Will you allow her to select her staff? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: If you're asking me as a potential 
member, the answer is of course. 

SENATOR AYALA: I would hope so. She's elected by 
the people, and you folks are appointed by the Governor and you 
have to support his philosophy, and he didn't run for 
Superintendent of Instruction. She did. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I'd like to -- 

SENATOR AYALA: So, I don't know how you people get 
off telling her how to run her office. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: — to not be difficult, but I think 
when you serve the people of the State of California, you serve 
them by virtue of your independence. 



10 

I come from a business background. I teach the 
subject. I've run many large corporations. 

And she is the CEO by my standards . And she has a 
very difficult job to do for the people of the State of 
California. 

And by my standards, she should pick her staff. And 
if that is an ingredient of your question, I will support her in 
picking her staff. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: On this point, just for purposes 
of clarification, the law, whether it be constitutional or 
statutory, seems to be unduly complicated with respect to the 
staffing. And there are sort of two groups of staff. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Yes, there are. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's unclear, arguably clear, that 
group number one has to get appointed before group number two, 
and that Delaine had started with group number two and was told 
no, no, you need to go back to one. 

Anyhow, we may share some of the blame in that maybe 
this was written long before any of us were here, except for 
Senator Petris, but there is a difficulty in interpreting the 
law. 

I spoke with the Superintendent this morning, and she 
continued to be in a positive, let's continue to work together, 
sort of approach to things, and explained that she's had some 
discussions recently with the Governor's Office, trying to sort 
this matter out. 

I'm sorry. I know you had another question. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just had the question, what was 



11 

your position on the voucher system for public schools? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, are you asking me which way I 
voted, or are you asking me why — 

SENATOR AYALA: What is your position? I don't care 
how you voted, but what was your position? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I think the answer to your 
question, you have to back up and let me offer you my 
understanding of why we had a voucher recommendation to the 
public . 

It was out of frustration for the educational 
delivery system, and leaving out enrichment of Catholic and 
private schools as an issue, I think it was an attempt by 
leadership and parents to get the best shot for the best 
education for their children that they could get. 

And if you accept it in that light, without any of 
the political overtures that have been put on it, I understand 
that frustration. 

I think that is a message for all people in education 
to recognize why that frustration occurred, and what can we do 
to remedy it. And I think if we're not proactive enough on all 
fronts, you could expect "Son of Voucher" to arrive again with 
more refinements, and the major refinement being for people of 
modest means . 

SENATOR AYALA: I agree that the voucher system 
hasn't gone away or the issue, but I think the opposition will 
be better prepared next time because they got an early warning 
of what's up ahead of them. 

So the end result is that you supported the voucher 



12 



system? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: No, I support the concept of a parent, 
working within the community to get the best education he or she 
can get for their child. And if the only alternative is some 
form of migration through a voucher, I can understand that 
frustration and I'm not against it. 

I would like not to have that occur by remedying the 
issue that causes it, but if it does occur, I think it puts the 
appropriate pressure for change and the opportunity to remedy in 
front of the people who have the authority to do it. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is it unconstitutional to support a 
private institution that is not public in terms of public funds 
going to them? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I can't speak to the 
constitutionality of how the money would be transferred, and to 
whether a voucher could go to a private school or to a Catholic 
school. 

I'm only speaking to the emotional issue of why it's 
there. I would have to have somebody explain the constitutional 
authority to me. 

SENATOR AYALA: There are schools already that 
parents can send their children to today, but they're not 
supported by public funds. And this would have supported public 
funds for private schools . And that ' s totally against the 
concept of American education, in my book. 

But anyway, you supported the voucher system. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I support the voucher system as I 
defined it for you. 



13 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess I'd like to pursue that 
just a bit, and it's to try to understand not so much your 
analysis of the voters' mood, because we all do that, but more 
your own approach and philosophy. 

I note that you mentioned that out of that 
frustration needs to come some remedy, or not only voters but 
you, yourself, might find there is — I don't want to put words 
in your mouth — but no other alternative to taking care of 
educational needs, other than some form of a voucher? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: No. Let me amplify the parameters of 
what I think we're talking about. 

I think the experiment of LEARN and charter schools 
is very exciting. And change in industry and education finance 
come through experimentation. And I think that experimentation 
will give direction and leadership if it performed as it ' s been 
described. 

When you talk to the issue of delivering balanced 
education in areas of financial need or social disaster, those 
parents who have the desire and the force to see that their 
children get education are not always heard. This system is, in 
some parts, self-defeating. The fact that they have the 
strength to do that for their family, I admire. 

And if the Governor's action which says you can move 
within school districts doesn't do that job, then I think the 
issue of choice is still an issue that has to be addressed, and 
maybe it's not vouchers. Maybe it's more emphasis on inner city 
school training, or retraining of teachers for inner schools, or 



14 

retraining parents for that education. 

But the issue that I'm speaking to is, you cannot 
loose another generation of young people to deficit funded areas 
or restricted education opportunities . It's not in the best 
interests of this state or this country. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to help us with a 
forecast? That is, knowing what you know about funding, school 
organization, the law, do you see another generation likely to 
be lost, or some different result more likely? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, as a professional crisis 
manager, I always look for the negatives, little torpedoes, as 
opposed to the positives. 

I'm very bullish on what can be done, or I wouldn't 
be taking time out of my private sector life to come up here as 
much as I can and invest as much time as I can. 

I think that the school delivery systems will change. 
I think there'll be continuous emphasis on teacher regreening 
and bringing more minorities into teaching. 

I think that the Legislature, over time, will get the 
ability to get the ear of the public for more general obligation 
bonds for education and new facilities. 

I think business will be pushing to demand an 
educated population, and K through 12 and 14 will not be just 
buzz words, but absolute mandates for our state. 

And I think we'll have to deal with the issue of 
higher education costs, because we cannot essentially price 
ourselves out of graduate students and PhDs . 

I'm bullish, but I think it takes a lot of effort and 



15 

a lot of people to push on it, and it can't be without change. 
And there is resistance to change. There's a great comfort in 
being the man in the gray flannel suit, or the woman in the gray 
flannel suit. 

The State of California will not enter the 21st 
Century without radical change in the way that it appropriates 
money, the way in which it invests in its future, including 
infrastructure, that will put a fairly heavy burden on both the 
Senate and all the legislative bodies. It is a requirement for 
our investment for the 21st Century. 

Am I bullish? Yes, I'm bullish. 

Do I think it's going to be easy? No, I think it 
will be very difficult, because I think there is an enormous 
apathy to the kind of change that will be required as forecasted 
by the Summit that Speaker Brown put on, and the forces are 
there . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It may well be a matter that's 
prudently left unanswered, but I find myself frustrated when I 
know that schools have lost 2.4 billion due to inflation in the 
last four years, and rather than addressing that squarely, the 
captain of the ship suggests that we ought to shrink the revenue 
base devoted to K-14 by adoption of revenue reductions. 

And I don't expect you to answer if you don't wish to 
comment . 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Let me try to dance between the rain 
drops . 

I think that the educational delivery system will 
change over time, that we'll be able to provide quality 



16 

textbooks, and quality teachers, and a greater emphasis on our 
ability to learn and be competitive in the 21st Century. 

It will not be done without a cost, and that cost 
may be restructuring or re-engineering the way in which things 
are done, the arrival of technology or new schools, or it may be 
just a recognition of emphasis as to what is critical to this 
state to be competitive in the 21st Century. 

I know that if education was a business that was in 
trouble, you would mandate change, and you would do something 
about it. And if an educated population is the critical 
ingredient for the 21st Century, you would look at all issues, 
from the delivery system, to teacher qualification and 
regreening, to all the issues that are repugnant to bring up 
because somebody has to deal with them, but I think that's going 
to be an issue. 

In a public corporation where survival is based on 
change, if you don't change, you don't survive. 

If the State of California is going to have the 
quality of education that it had in the past, and the number of 
educated workers available to industry, it will change. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris, anything? 

SENATOR PETRIS: A couple of things. 

You've been on the Board for about a year? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Yes. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I understand you've only been able 
to attend four meetings of the Board, or maybe three. Once 
source says three, the other one says four. Let's say four. 

That seems like, you know, when they meet once a 



17 

month, that's twelve meetings a year. You've been there a 
fourth of them. 

Wouldn't that create a problem, both with your own 
pursuit of the duties and the impact on the Board itself? 
They've had two vacancies for a long time, so it would put them 
close to being without a quorum on several occasions. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I'll be happy to go through calendar 
date by calendar date, but I'm not sure that serves the thrust 
of your question. 

When I was asked on the Board, the calendar for that 
year had already been set. My calendar for the year was also 
set. There were some compromises possible and others that 
weren't. When there wasn't a compromise, I would always call in 
with my observations and recommendations on the actions in front 
of the Board, where I attended the Board in part telephonically . 

But just to set the record straight, since it was 
brought up in opposition, I wasn't sworn in until February. 
There was an insoluble conflict on the 9th and 10th. I made the 
first meeting. I had to go to a dear friend's funeral for the 
second. Could not change two board meetings. Went to the 
special meeting that was called, unscheduled. Went to the 
Educational Summit, and couldn't resolve a teaching conflict. 

So, although the official record of those meetings 
that were scheduled was four, I actually attended six, one by 
voice, and made all my comments for those meetings two days in 
advance. 

So, and everybody knew that that schedule for the 
first year was not an easy one to adjust. It's more easy to 



18 

adjust in the second year because I had time to change board 
meetings. I do have some conflicts on teaching schedules that 
won't get changed, but I make a point to read all the material 
that was sent to the Board, to put my comments in writing or 
verbally if I didn't attend. 

So, I'm not sure that attendance is a criteria of 
performance, but within the first year I think I did the best I 
could with the time I had. 

SENATOR PETRIS: How does it look for the second 
year? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I teach two classes at UCLA at the 
graduate level, so sometimes there's a conflict in getting a 
substitute teacher, and there are some conflicts coming up 
because of multiple board meetings. 

But the attendance should be better this year, if I'm 
confirmed, than last year because I'd have more time to adjust 
my schedule. 

SENATOR PETRIS: One of the big issues that comes up 
in a lot of public agencies, schools are one of them, is 
contracting out. 

MR . S IGOLOFF : Sure . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Personally, I'm very nervous about 
it. I've always opposed it. Not always, it depends on the 
case, but most of the time I've opposed it. 

The school employees are nervous about it . 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Sure. 

SENATOR PETRIS: With justification, I would think. 
It's deemed some kind of a threat to them, who feel they can do 



19 

the job, and it doesn't need to be farmed out. 

What are your views on that? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I'll answer you both ways. 

It's very easy when you're new to the system to say 
things can be done better by the private sector than the public 
sector, and then there is a reverse to it, that the public 
sector has the better expertise. 

I think the answer for contracting is a case by case 
review of performance against stated objectives, and cost 
against budget. And I think that is a requirement of anybody 
who has fiscal responsibility over spending money. 

I must tell you in all honesty that, like everybody 
new, you start off in a vendetta and say: why don't we contract 
out food service, and why don't we contract out busing? There 
are many people in the State of California who do this for a 
living. And in a very brief interval, without any intent to 
reach any conclusion in those two areas, which are the only two 
that I looked at, they appear to be running certainly to the top 
quartile of industry standards and appear to be competitive. 

So, there is a natural thrust to say: let's see if 
we can't get it done better by industry. But on the other hand, 
I'm not a believer in fixing something if it's not broken. 

SENATOR PETRIS: So your preliminary investigation 
indicated it didn't need fixing. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Wouldn't be one of the things that I 
would be rushing out to do. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Another area is charter schools. 
Have you reviewed how the charter school — it's a new program. 



20 

We've had conflicting reports. Some people are raving about it, 
and others are skeptical . 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I can't quantify for you. I'm not a 
student that actually, having been in the schools and looked at 
them as they ' ve grown . 

The concept, which embodies a strong relationship 
between parents and teachers, and the concept of change, I 
endorse completely. 

I think there's a period of time before people will 
be asking you to raise the 100 level, the 100 school level, but 
I think it's a way of looking at how we have different delivery 
systems for the needs of the state. 

I don't know how to quantify that. I haven't spent 
enough time with it, but I am excited by the fact that it 
appears to be a well thought out, fairly well reasoned 
experiment, and I hope it meets its expectations. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I guess we'll need more time to see 
how it works. It's still pretty new. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, as you know, without a 
measurement system right now, some of it's going to be 
subjective. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: May I interject while you review 
your notes? 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I would start with the observation 
that too often, savings from privatization schemes seem to be 
the absence of health benefits that would run with the private 
employee compared to the public employee, I think, perhaps, 



21 

contributing to larger — 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — social problems, though 
temporarily, perhaps, producing a savings. 

It might be, though, the appropriate segue into the 
issue of Wickes and the pension funds. 

MR . S IGOLOFF : Sure . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Since I know in reviewing my mail 
that that's at least a claim of Ming the Merciless. 

And you don ' t even need to talk about that . I only 
mention it as part of the depiction, fairly or unfairly. And I 
understand the — 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, you know it's comedic . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand that. 

As someone who has probably a similar sense of human 
that's gotten me in trouble numerous times, I understand. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But the issue is a real one, or at 
least it is claimed to be; that is, reviewing a business wire 
from 1985, there's an assessment of Wickes and about lh million 
saved because of termination of pension benefits to former or 
current Wickes employees . 

Could you help us understand that whole situation? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I read Ms. Golden ' s letter. It would 
have been instructive to me if she would have been able to tell 
me the subsidiary of the division, because I find the letter 
remarkably deficit in that manner. 

The regulation of pensions in the United States — 



22 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you remember? Maybe you can 
recall . 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Oh, I can. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're going to tell us. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I will tell you, because I am positive 
there's two parts to the equation here that are confusing. 

Number one, there is an inference here that Wickes 
essentially bought a company to raid its pension funds. 

Under- funded and properly funded pensions funds are 
very strictly controlled. If you have an under- funding, as most 
major companies had as we went from the '85s to '90s, you had a 
financial obligation to fund them. If not, it was publicly 
reported. 

If, on the other hand, there is a subsequent event 
where there is a surplus, and if actuarial data supports the 
fact that those fundings are adequate for that population as it 
ages, it is financially correct to take the surplus into the 
operating accounts of the company. 

I think the party or the subsidiary in question is 
called Simmons. Simmons was acquired as part of a group of 
companies from Gulf and Western. Simmons is Simmons Mattress 
Company, probably a 45 or 50 year old history of making 
mattresses primarily to be sold through Sears and J.C. Penney. 

They had an over- funded pension fund. That 
over-funded pension fund was reviewed by actuarial people and 
seemed to be clearly in a safety net, according to actuary data, 
and the money was brought into the surplus of the company. It 
was not raided. 



23 

Approximately two years later, the company was sold 
through an LBO. And to the best of my recollection, three years 
after that or four years after that, the company was resold 
again and partially liquidated, at which time there was a suit 
brought that the actuarial data was inadequate . 

The inference here that Wickes made an acquisition to 
raid a pension fund is extremely naive and not founded. 

As to the final resolution of the lawsuit, I was not 
the CEO at that time. The company had then been acquired by 
Blackstone. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And they settled, I believe, out 
of court. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I know the history of it going to 
there, whatever happened, but if there was a settlement, it was 
on the basis of actuarial data being reviewed and changed. 

There is a second innuendo in one of these things 
that is remarkable to me about my insensitivity to the working 
person. One concludes that I started out as the CEO of a public 
company and never had to work, and I appreciate that vote of 
confidence. 

The issue that is missed here, and the records are 
very complete on this, that one of the most dramatic efforts to 
deal with the working class, as described by one of these 
letters, was in the Wickes case with a company called Aldens, a 
company that employed 3500 people in what is called the 
catalogue business. 

If you're familiar with catalogue technology, it's 
sales per page. 



24 

This company was 50 years old, and the average age of 
employment there was 33 years. The company had to be closed for 
insolvency reasons . 

And although I am a Fellow of the American College of 
Bankruptcy, of which there are 400 Fellows, I know of no other 
case where a debtor in possession went to a judge to take 
creditors ' money to pay the obligations of this particular union 
because they were of color, they had spent their entire life 
working for that company, they had no opportunity in the 
recession to ever be reemployed, and it was a violent conflict 
between the unions, the creditors, and the judge voted in my 
favor. 

So, when somebody suggests insensitivity to the 
working person, I wish they'd do a better job. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Let me ask the question I posed when we had a brief 
conversation — 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — some months ago. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: When I was migrating the halls. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, it was a different issue at 
the time, but still an educational one. 

Let me ask for the information first. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In reviewing your rather extensive 
and impressive vita, it is clear that there was almost a decade 
from being a senior in college in chemistry and physics, then 
through the '50s, employment, being in the service, employment 



25 

with the AEC, I guess, in two different segments. 

MR . S IGOLOFF : Right . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And the moral question, I think, 
that ' s raised by that era — 

MR. S IGOLOFF: Sure. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — and I don't know in any way, so 
I ask: is there any aspect of it we should know about that 
involved human guinea pig experimentation with radiation? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I think that came up in a 
broader issue by Senator Hayden that included polluting the 
atmosphere . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I didn't remember that section. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: It was not only radiating people, but 
we did the atmosphere. 

The issue that you're speaking to is that when I 
graduated from UCLA, anybody who was trained in atomic energy 
was nationalized during the Korean War. I was put in the Air 
Force as a lieutenant assigned to Air University Command on loan 
to Las Alamos and Oak Ridge. 

From 1951 to 1958, I was involved in nuclear weapons 
design and development in the United States for testing at the 
Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving Ground. 

And if you can turn you mind back to a period of time 
when we thought we were in a race for the ultimate defense of 
the societal issues that we call democracy, it was very 
important that the United States win the race for deliverable 
weapons, and secondly, the development and delivery of a 
hydrogen bomb. 



26 

History has suggested that there was excesses in 
terms of fallout. There were excesses in terms of exposure to 
people who were distant from the initial detonation, 
particularly in the South Pacific. Part of that, I think, was 
not understanding the forces that were being unleashed, but 
leaving those aside, the issue was not only to be strategically 
strong, but to also understand the defense population needs if 
the United States, under some unforeseen scenario, would be 
adversely effected. 

One of the jobs that I had, which ultimately ended up 
with being the American delegate to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, was the reconstruction of the Nagasaki-Hiroshima 
weapons, and the reconstruction of the two cities at the Nevada 
Test Site. And the rationale behind this was to determine the 
cause of death from primary radiation and from fallout. 

And the fallout was particularly interesting, because 
it would set, then, the health standards for all the health 
aspects of the peaceful uses of atomic energy, and design and 
construction. That is, in the annals as Ichiban I and Ichiban 
II, which became the basis for determining the radiobiological 
effects of radiation for the peaceful uses of atomic energy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A partial redundancy, Ichiban I. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Yes. So, in one case it was delivery 
in defense; in the other, it was the education for 30 more years 
of peaceful use of atomic energy. 

Did Hanford get polluted? I wasn't at Hanford. Did 
Oak Ridge get polluted? Could have been. 

My job was not in those areas. It was submarine 



27 

defense systems and droppable nuclear weapons for the Air Force. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Not measurement of — 

MR. SIGOLOFF: The critical issue of efficiency was 
measurement, so my assignment was radiation measurement, and 
also working with the timing and firing people to determine 
yield. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How about human — 

MR. SIGOLOFF: There were no human experiments. 

There were — if you think of an atomic bomb, you 
always have a mental image of a house with the windows being 
blown out and dummies being thrown around. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I remember those movies. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Those experiments were done, including 
the development of underground protection systems, with no 
animals . 

They did have a series of experiments with rats to 
determine blast, blast damage. The animal experimentation, when 
it did occur, was by fallout, and that was by accident. 

But the experiments in the era that I was in was 
blast damage, and that was done on rats. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I, just as an aside, recall 
as a young kid, getting up at 4:00 in the morning in Oakland to 
go up on top of the hill and watch, just wait for the flash, as 
somebody who at least before I got off the track, had desired to 
be an astronuclear physicist. So, I was quite excited about 
what was going on, but that's old news. 

Was there any deliberate or intentional exposure of 
military or other personnel to your knowledge in order to 



28 

measure impacts of radiation? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I was there at the test that 
you're talking about, which was the firing of the atom cannon. 

Military activity, as opposed to civilian activity, 
was segregated. Everybody knew what radiation health and safety 
was all about. Everybody was monitored, wrapped up. 

From the pictures that I've seen, and we were several 
miles in different directions from that, there obviously was 
radiation effects which appeared to be secondary by walking 
through radioactive fields, because primary they were 
underground. But you'd have to look at the military files. 

We did the radiation measurements , and on two 
occasions, we were in to areas closer to Ground Zero to pick up 
highly classified material. 

But I think what happened is that the amount of 
exposure walking around was far in excess of what anybody 
anticipated. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And so your conclusion would be, 
no deliberate or intentional exposure — 

MR. SIGOLOFF: No, from my side — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — for purposes of science. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: No. From my side of the experiments, 
of course I was on the civilian side, but these fellows were in 
trenches, and they were basically for maneuvers. But I was not 
involved in that. That was strictly run by military operations. 

Our job was to design and fire a device. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have one more question. 



29 

What do you think of the Governor's budget proposal 
to do away with the Educational Code and teacher tenure? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I'm not a student of either, but 
I can understand a revisionist's view of improving the Code, 
which appears to be some years old and might actually be better. 

SENATOR AYALA: Improve it rather than eliminate it? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I don't know that the word "eliminate" 
is something I can respond to. 

In my time here, which has been a year, I've heard 
that it is very cumbersome, very large, and perhaps is 
redundant, and probably could be improved and should be 
improved. That's the nature of my knowledge. 

SENATOR AYALA: Versus elimination. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I'm not sure that elimination is not a 
vector towards getting improvement. I mean, I think that would 
be the extreme. 

But I think, from my vantage point, I've heard it's 
in need of some assistance. 

The issue of teacher tenure, when I met with the CTA, 
the issue that I was concerned about was, first of all, how do 
we get more people interested in teaching as this generation 
phases out, and how do we get more minorities into teaching to 
balance the teaching portfolio? 

And the second thing was , how do we balance bringing 
new teachers in to the requirement for regreening, which 
everybody needs to do, and how do you enforce that? 

We spent a lot of time talking about it. I think 
there was agreement that it was an ongoing program and a need, 



30 

but not necessarily as to how it was done. 

I think everybody recognizes that somebody trained X 
number of years ago as a specialist is in constant need of 
retraining to be more proficient. The question is: how do you 
do it, and a what particular point in time do you not need it. 

So, I think that the teacher organizations have that 
responsibility, and based on my meeting with Mr. Webber and 
others up in Burlingame, I have the sense that they're working 
on that or are attempting to work on it . 

SENATOR AYALA: Senator Petris touched on your lack 
of attending the sessions. One of them was apparently conducted 
by telephone. 

Tell how that happens . How can you — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'd all like to do that. 

SENATOR AYALA: Can I get to attend here by staying 
home and calling in my vote? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: No, no, no. Senator, I don't want to 
leave you with the impression that was having toast and coffee 
with my wife while everybody was working hard. 

It was important that some of the — I did not attend 
the meeting from its beginning to its end by telephone. 

There was a very specific issue that required 
discussion. It was felt that it should be done telephonically . 
I was not the only member who participated telephonically, but 
it was to cover that issue in that meeting where I felt I could 
make a contribution, and secondly, that I should be in 
attendance. But it was a readjustment of my schedule to meet 
another schedule because I couldn't be up here. 



31 

SENATOR AYALA: But that telephone conversation was 
recorded as part of your presentation if you had been present? 
I don't understand how that works. I've never heard of it, to 
be frank with you. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: You'd have to ask the mechanical issue 
here. 

I called into Mr. Deating and said I cannot make the 
meeting; that was know; here are the agenda items that I think 
could be before us . 

There was a session that required a lot of 
discussion. It was during the CLAS period, and they 
telephonically hooked me into the Board, along with somebody who 
was also not in attendance, to discuss that one particular 
issue. 

But the mechanics of how it was done, I can't help 
you. All I know is that I was on the phone for over an hour. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you get per diem for that? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I'll have to remember that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me inquire if there either 
support or opposition that would wish to come forward? 

I want to only indicate, there are letters in the 
file, of course, expressing concerns, mostly from the employee 
organizations . And I know sometimes they like to know where 
we're headed before they put their neck in the noose. 

So, with that thought in mind, I would only like to 
say, with the information I have, and I've spent a reasonable 
amount of time reviewing the documentation, given Mr. Sigoloff's 
responses to our questions today, I would only say while I think 



32 

there are grounds for apprehension, there's sufficient basis for 
opposition. 

Unless there is additional information that we 
haven't heard, I would say that Mr. Sigoloff, you're obviously 
enormously bright and successful, obviously successful 
individual, and the only question I would have about this 
particular post is how comfortable you are working as a member 
of the Board of Directors rather than the CEO? Because you 
obviously have a CEO disposition, and that could be incongruous 
with the needs of a more corporate sort of collegiality. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Well, I always — I wasn't always a 
CEO. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know, but you certainly were a 
lot of times. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: And am now. 

I think that's a very fair question, and I've tried 
to address it by being a very serious reader of the material 
that's sent to me and responding in advance on those issues. 

I think I am best served by serving, by being 
identified as running a specific function. I asked for the 
chair of essentially the performance — you can use the 
adjectives in front of it and back of it — group, and that 
meant that before I wanted to chair that, I wanted to spend a 
lot of time with people who were in the field of change, and a 
lot of time with Rand and other people. And also, we never 
appropriated any money to do it . 

Aside from being on the Legislative Committee and 
attending the other activities, I think my service would be best 



33 

chairing a particular group and working very strongly to meet 
the goals of that group, independent of doing the best I can on 
attendance. 

I enjoyed the deliberations, but many of them, as you 
know, are procedural, which if I have the time allocation, I 
would tend to invest it more in the committee activity that I'm 
involved with. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I note a lot of them are grants of 
local waivers — 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — and things that somebody has to 
do, but they may be — 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Not being disrespectful, they are a 
little tedious. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

Let me ask, I was reading your rather substantial and 
interesting biography, and one thing that I wanted to ask about, 
because I didn't know what it was, had to do with numerous forms 
of assistance to a variety of public and private agencies: the 
CEO Review Task Force and Idea Audit for Controller Davis. What 
was that undertaking? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Gray Davis came to me on the eve of 
that job and said that he had a large body of employees. He 
needed to know how to communicate and motivate them. And he 
also wanted to know whether there was a ten-point program for 
his particular activities, including streamlining, and 
consolidating, and time management. 

Gray and I have known each other for a long time. I 



34 

think he's a very dedicated and very, very respectful person of 
talents that he does have and doesn't have. And he said, "Will 
you help me?" 

So, I put together a group of lawyers and businessmen 
and essentially wrote the program that he enacted, which I'm 
sure he will you the details of, not from a Republican 
standpoint or a Democratic standpoint, but for the people of the 
State of California. And we invested about six months working 
with him, writing everything, including the investment portfolio 
policy for the State of California. 

It was a pleasure to work with him, but it was a 
citizen group. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So that's what that group was. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Yes, it was basically to essentially 
have him reframe and restructure that job. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was there any particular single 
part of it that you recall as the most significant or 
interesting? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Investments in California part, 
California 100. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present who would 
wish to make a comment at this time? 

SENATOR PETRIS: May I just ask, your vita here is 
kind of overwhelming. You've done a lot of things, and you've 
received numerous awards. And as you point out, you've been the 
CEO of a lot of companies. 

How do you spend your time now principally? Is it in 
the bankruptcy role that you played in the past, or just where 



35 

do you spend it? How would you describe your present activities 
or primary activities now? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: My term as a Commissioner to the 
Holocaust, U.S. Holocaust Museum, ended in January, which took 
some burden off, and I think you're familiar with my having been 
appointed by President Reagan to be on the Commission to build 
the Museum. 

I would say 25 percent of my time is on campus and 
guest lecturing, and the legal work of the Fellows of the 
American College of Bankruptcy. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What are your lecture subjects? Are 
they business? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: At the Business School as a professor, 
I teach with Professor Cochran ethics and balance sheets, which 
is finance, my own course in crisis management and minimalism. 
That takes about 25 percent of my time. 

About 25 percent of my time are out of business 
activities, like the State Board, charitable organizations, and 
the other 25 percent is, you know, my private project time. 

SENATOR PETRIS: What's the last one? 

MR. SIGOLOFF: Private project time. I do a lot of 
pro bono work for small troubled companies, and I still run my 
own practice, but I basically work in the larger cases, which 
doesn't require as much time as the smaller cases. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Thank you. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Are you ready for a motion? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone who wishes to 
comment? 



36 



SENATOR BEVERLY: Move we recommend confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Could we take a recess for five 
minutes. I would like to return a phone call, and that would 
give me a chance to do that, and for everyone to make sure 
they've looked through their papers and notes. Thank you. 

[Thereupon a brief recess 
was taken. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for the chance for a 
brief break, Members. We're all present and we'll resume. 

We had left off with a motion by Senator Beverly. 
Just let me ask, any other questions from Members, comments by 
Members before we would proceed to a vote? 

Hearing none, call the roll on Senator Beverly's 
motion. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Sigoloff, I guess 
congratulations or condolences, depending on one's perspective. 
A variety of points of view have all expressed 



37 

confidence in your capacity, and intellect, and abilities, and 
we expect you to perform well for the public that we all serve. 

MR. SIGOLOFF: I thank you for the vote of 
confidence, and my pleasure to meet you another time when you're 
not sitting in such official surroundings. 

Thank you again. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Resuming the original agenda, Item 
Number One is Mr. Steve Baker who has been appointed as a member 
of the Board of Prison Terms. 

We didn't tell you that it's sort of every other one 
we turn down. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to start with any 
comments at all? 

MR. BAKER: I think most of you know my history. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me kind of jump right to the 
heart of the issue. 

There's no question of your capacity, and training, 
and education, and experience, and all of those things. The 
question that ' s posed by a horribly tragic event in your 
family's life, and one for which I personally, and I'm sure 
every Member of the Committee would wish to, though years later, 
extend our heartfelt feelings for the suffering and tragedy your 
family's had to deal with. 

MR. BAKER: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's horrible, but it raises the 
question of fairness and objectivity, and whether you're 
capable, with all of that emotion that probably still lives with 



38 

you everyday, to comport the duties of this particular job with 
an objective and fair attitude. 

That's probably an impossible question to ask, but it 
feels like the one that needs to be addressed, in all fairness. 
What comments or thoughts would you have about the matter? 

MR. BAKER: A couple of things, Senator. 

Number one, there's certainly nobody in the prison 
system today that had anything to do with my case. That would 
be number one . 

Number two, victims and victim survivors are the 
fastest growing minority in this state. And I don't think that 
we can say that judges that have become victims or victim 
survivors, or police chiefs, or Legislators, for that matter, 
can be eliminated from the decision making process in this state 
simply because they become a victim or a victim survivor. 

Thirdly, if you know my history, you know that my son 
was murdered when I was on the police department for six years. 

1 spent another 14 years on that same police department after 
that. I spent 8 years as an undercover police officer; I spent 

2 years working property crime as a detective, and 4 more years 
working violent crimes as a detective. 

I never had a complaint. Never had a complaint filed 
against me as far as fairness goes or — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Misuse of force, or any such 
thing? 

MR. BAKER: Correct, not once. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know what else one could 
say about that . 



39 

I don't know if there's any opposition present, but 
if there is, we'll get to that in a moment, but I would just 
encourage people to try to be specific and provide an objective 
basis for apprehension, rather than a more generalized one. 

There may be questions from Members of the Committee. 
I'll start with that before calling on any testimony, support or 
opposition. 

Anyone who wishes to comment that's with us? 

This may be awfully fast. See what happens when you 
take up so much time on the first one, then you kind of move 
fast on the next couple, then you slow down again. 

MR. BAKER: I'm feeling better already, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the toughest decision you 
can recall confronting so far while you've been there, about a 
year almost? 

MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do any stand out as either a 
specific case or a kind of decision that troubled you the most? 

MR. BAKER: Probably, Senator, in some cases, we are 
mandated by law to not retry a case. And every once in a while, 
you run into one where that's exactly what you'd like to do, and 
you just can't do it because the law says you can't do it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would be the circumstances 
where you would wish to? 

MR. BAKER: For example, in a case where, because of 
the felony murder rule. For example, two people go to rob a 
liquor store. One of them goes inside; the other one stays 
outside in the car, doesn't — nobody's supposed to get hurt, 



40 

but the guy inside will kill the clerk and then come running 
out. The guy outside will give himself up. 

That's second degree murder or first degree murder, 
actually, and he'll go to prison. 

It's very difficult, sometimes, if you look at an 
individual like that, and you really would like to retry the 
case but you can't. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Because your, at least, impulse is 
that, perhaps, the doctrine is unduly harsh in some of those 
type circumstances? 

MR. BAKER: In a few of them, not all of them. 
There's some of them, the guy deserves to go to prison. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But that's the kind of situation 
you're referring to? 

MR. BAKER: Exactly. That's probably the hardest 
decision, when you ask about the hardest decisions, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I notice there's been a fairly 
significant increase in parole revocations. Of course, that's 
part of your job, to make those determinations. 

What's going on? Can you tell why we've had these 
statistical jumps? 

MR. BAKER: Senator, I probably can't speak to that 
because I've only been there a year. And during the year that 
I've been there, I can tell you the policy that's used during 
that time, and that is, public safety comes first. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Has anyone suggested that wasn't 
the policy in an earlier time? 

MR. BAKER: Nobody has suggested that. 



41 

It has been suggested that the Governor, this 
particular Governor, personally reads every decision that goes 
to him, where Governors in the past perhaps personally didn't 
read them. Maybe a staff member read it or something. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This Governor reviews the 
revocations, or what is he reviewing? 

MR. BAKER: If a panel gives a prisoner a date, a 
parole date, that will automatically go to the Governor. The 
Governor will personally read the whole transcript. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I see, okay. Because he has to 
make a decision as to whether to request you to review your 
parole date decision? 

MR. BAKER: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many decisions do you make in 
the course of a year? 

MR. BAKER: We make 16 a week. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's a lot of reading. 

MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have there been instances you can 
recall during this year when the Governor has recommended 
review? 

MR. BAKER: Recommended that another panel take a 
look at the same case? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MR. BAKER: Yes, there's been a couple, or two or 
three of those. Not really that many 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were you on either the first or 
the second panel in those situations? 



42 

MR. BAKER: I have been on the second panel in a 
couple, two or three of them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you recall any different 
decision being made by panel two than was rendered by panel one? 

MR. BAKER: I think it's split pretty well evenly. I 
specifically remember in a couple of cases where the prison was 
allowed to keep his date, but I also remember in a couple cases 
where it was taken away. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would you distinguish between 
those, to the extent that you can recall those details? What 
were the grounds for changing the date or delaying the parole 
decision versus keeping the original? 

MR. BAKER: Senator, I'm not sure I can remember the 
exact specifics. I can tell you one of the things that I look 
at the strongest. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay. 

MR. BAKER: And I don't want to send somebody back to 
the street the same person that they were when they came into 
the system. So, I will look very hard at their criminal 
history, at the gravity of the offense itself. Have they 
programmed? In other words, have they got their GED if they 
didn't have one when they came in? Was alcohol or drugs a part 
of the crime, and if so, what have they done to take care of 
that? Have they been to AA; do they know the 12 steps of AA? 
What kind of support do they have on the outside? 

These are the kinds of things that I look at real 
strong. And also, what does the psychiatrist say? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That sounds like a very thoughtful 



43 



process . 

Senators? 

Anyone here who wishes to comment? 

MS. BERRY: My name is Gina Berry. I am Director and 
staff attorney for the Prisoners Rights Union. 

I'm here to support the confirmation, Mr. Baker's 
confirmation, for several reasons. 

When I first heard of his appointment, I was very 
troubled, because it represented a trend I had seen recently in 
appointments to the Board of Prison Terms, where, if the person 
had an exceptionally strong tie with law enforcement, a career 
in law enforcement, or a strong tie plus a strong tie with 
criminal rights/victims' rights groups, he was — he or she was 
assured a position on the Board of Prison Terms. 

That instantly raised in my mind, as an attorney, 
fairness. I was prepared to fight Mr. Baker any time he came on 
my panel, and in fact did challenge him initially. 

However, Mr. Baker has sat on a couple of my panels, 
including a parole recission hearing where I did not agree with 
the decision, but I found him to be exceptionally fair, and 
exceptionally tough. He asks the right questions. He does not 
mischaracterize the answers. He does not mischaracterize the 
history. He plays by the rules. He does it the way it should 
be done . 

I only wish, as an advocate for inmates and a parole 
attorney, that all of the Commissioners currently sitting could 
be as fair as he is and could play by the rules, which are clear 
and give the Board of Prison Terms Commissioners a great deal of 



44 

discretion in reviewing evidence. 

I am very happy with this experience and what he ' s 
shown up to this time. I only hope it stays. 

So, I would support his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

Did you want to add anything or make additional 
comments? 

MS. STEWART: My name is Karen Stewart, and I'm not 
here representing any particular group, but I am here to 
represent some personal concerns . 

In the past, we've been allowed to take a neutral 
stand. I'm not here to oppose Mr. Baker. 

I also echo Gina Berry's comments that I have heard 
from prisoners, and families, and other attorneys that he asks 
very appropriate questions, is fair and impartial, and I would 
encourage the other Commissioners to be the same way. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are you representing a group 
today? 

MR. STEWART: No, not today. I'm just speaking for 
myself . 

I do want to take the opportunity to use this forum 
to talk about three areas of concern with the Board of Prison 
Terms . 

The law states that the confirmation of Commissioners 
should be a cross-section of the population of the state; 
cross-section in the areas of racial, sexual, economic, and 
geographic figures or features. 

So, the areas I want to bring up today is that when 



45 

there were 12 prisons, the law allowed 9 Commissioners. Today- 
there are 27 prisoners [sic] and 6 more in the pipeline, and 
still only allows 9 Commissioners. 

What's resulted is, the Board is trying to meet the 
growing demand of parole hearings in very innovative ways, such 
as four hearings in one day; asking prisoners to sign waivers 
for two years; or just giving out blanket two-year denials to 
space out the workload. 

And the result has been very over worked 
Commissioners, less time for them to closely review the 
prisoner's Central File, and less time to discuss in-depth 
questions with the prisoners . And the prisoners are getting a 
feeling of hopelessness from all of this. 

And there's costly litigation in the courts, such as 
the current Morales case, from the prisoners seeking relief to 
be considered under the laws in effect at the time that they 
were convicted. 

So, I guess today I'm asking in regards to this 
concern that a bill be introduced to increase the number of 
Commissioners to meet the demands for the 11,000-plus prisoners 
in the prisons today. And with the Three Strikes and you're in 
prison for life, that number of life of prisoners can only 
escalate as will the parole hearings. 

My second area of concern is the Board members . 
There are currently two ex-Legislator Commissioners, a Caucasian 
female, and a Caucasian male. There is one vacancy. The 
remaining six positions have been appointed to males primarily 
from Southern California whose previous occupations were in law 



46 

enforcement. 

We have no Pacific Islanders. We have no Asians, and 
we have no American Indian Commissioners. We have one female 
Commissioner out of nine possible. 

I'm also requesting that in the introduction of the 
bill, that it would truly reflect the intent of the current law 
by adding some specific language that states that no more than a 
certain number of Commissioners be from law enforcement 
background, and that perhaps there be a psychologist, a 
sociologist, a small business person, maybe a CEO, an educator, 
a defense attorney, or a minister, to give us more of a true 
cross -sect ion. 

My third area of concern is, today I am requesting 
that the Department of Corrections submit a quarterly report to 
the Board of Prison Terms, listing what types of prisoner 
self-help programs are available; what institutions are 
operating these self-help programs, and the maximum number of 
prisoners that can participate in each program at any given 
time. 

I make this request due to the Board ' s recommendation 
to lifers for some things, such as completing an AA degree, or 
to participate in an anger control management group. In 
checking with the Department of Corrections, these programs 
currently do not exist in the Department of Corrections. And if 
they do not relay this information on the updated quarterly 
information to the Board, they cannot make adequate 
recommendations to the prisoners . 

So, my comments today, they're not intended to 



47 

criticize the Board, but to provide suggestions that I believe 
would benefit the Board, the prisoners, and the taxpayers' 
expenses for court litigation against the Board. 

Thank you for your time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Next, please. 

MS. RODGER: I am representing Concerned Citizens for 
Prisoners, CCP, and we are here today to represent the people 
who are interested in CCP, which is the voice of over 300 
families of prisoners and people concerned about the prisoners 
and for victims and victims' families. 

Because we have groups from both sides, we tend to 
have to stay in the middle of the road, so we try not to get on 
the outside of anything. 

We have nothing personal against Mr. Baker, but we 
are strongly opposed to his confirmation. 

In the Penal Code, Part 3, Title 7, Section 5075, the 
selection of Commissioners for the Board of Prison Terms and 
their appointment by the Governor and confirmation by the Senate 
shall reflect as nearly as possible a cross-section of the 
racial, sexual, economic, and geographic features of the 
population of the state. 

The current Board does not follow these requirements . 
These are not guidelines, but requirements. The BPT is 
comprised of two ex-Legislators and six ex-law enforcement. 
Seven-eighths of the current Commissioners are male, although 
the general population is less than half male. Three-fourths of 
it are ex-law enforcement. Is the general population 



48 

three-quarters law enforcement? Three- fourths are from Southern 
California. I question, do three-quarters of California's 
population live in San Diego County? 

All are of a higher economic group, and this is 
actually the smallest percentage of the population. 

These members certainly do not represent a 
cross-section of the racial, sexual, economical [sic] and 
geographical features of the population of the state. 

With the confirmation of Steven Baker, the BPT is 
further eschewed against any prisoners being paroled. There are 
over 11,000 prisoners who have served over their minimum time, 
and most are well adjusted and rehabilitated to be productive 
parts of society. Releasing those who are no longer a threat to 
society would relieve the overcrowding of the prisons and save 
the taxpayers money. And being a taxpayer, I'm very interested 
in that. 

BPT Commissioners are being prejudiced by theirs or 
their spouse's membership in the boards of victim rights groups, 
who are beholden to the California Correctional Peace Officers 
Association for financial support, and I think that was very 
evident in the Sacramento Bee not long ago . 

One of the Commissioners, John Gillis, whose daughter 
was murdered by gang members, is already a member. And now 
you're asking us to accept Steve Baker, whose son was murdered 
by Robert Alton Harris, and Mr. Baker witnessed the execution of 
Harris at San Quentin in 1992. 

How can these people be impartial judges of who 
should or should not be paroled? We have no control over who is 



49 

already on the BPT, but do we have to appoint another 
Commissioner with such a flagrant conflict of interest? And who 
would be cited on the conflict of interest, Mr. Baker or the 
Senate Committee who appointed him? 

Please vote no on Mr. Baker's confirmation. 

If you'd like copies, I have copies. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Just a quick question. 

MS. RODGER: Certainly. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Can you explain to me why a 
geographical diversity is important? 

MS. RODGER: Because people from different areas of 
California, and I found to to be true when I was doing 
compliance work for the federal government, have very different 
ideas on what should or should not be done, whether it has to do 
with crime, or whether it has to be safety in the work place. 

And because, if you bring in from the same geographic 
area, you're going to get one idea, not a cross-section of what 
the whole state believes. 

I found this very true in safety. I was a compliance 
officer with the federal government. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Are there any studies that you can 
point to? 

MS. RODGER: I didn't think to look up any, no, but 
I'm sure there are. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Again, I'm sorry, I maybe was too 
focused on the letter here, but the geographic relevance is 
what? 



50 

MS. RODGER: Is because people in one geographic area 
have generally the same ideas about things, whether it's crime, 
or whether it's religion, or whatever. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I thought that's what I heard. 

MS. RODGER: I saw this when I was with the federal 
government in safety. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess I'm much more aware in my 
own district of the diversity of opinion between San Leandro and 
Hayward, or Fremont and Castro Valley, and on and on and on, or 
even within the same community, the hills and the flat lands. 

I understand your general point, they may all read 
the same newspaper, especially in San Diego. 

Senator Petris . 

MS. RODGER: May I answer? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. 

MS. RODGER: To go back to your area, because I used 
to live over there and work over there, if you take all of the 
people and put them on the Commission that are from the hills, 
you ' re going to get one opinion than when you take the people 
from down in the flat lands that are of a — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But you're saying everyone from 
San Diego is the same, and that's kind of my point. There are a 
lot of San Diegos . 

MS. RODGER: That's right. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Actually, I think she's saying 
everyone from Southern California is the same. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's true. 

MS. RODGER: And we from Northern California would 



51 

like them to drop in the ocean. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I understand your point, 
although I guess with respect to these criteria, I'd be more 
concerned about the occupational over-concentration. 

MS. RODGER: Exactly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think that's a more serious 
problem generically. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I agree, but the appointing 
authority sits downstairs in the corner office. And I would 
address that to others who've spoken. 

You need to write to the Governor about the make-up 
of the Board. 

I suppose we could turn down everybody that doesn ' t 
fit the pattern, but that's not a very good way to harmonize 
with the executive . 

Now, my question is, going from an uneasiness because 
of his background and the terrible thing that happened in his 
family, to the conclusion that he can't be objective is a very 
leap, it seems to me. And you've got a test here. 

He was asked what happened afterward, and he served 
for many years in those very areas, involving violent crimes and 
so forth, as a police officer. And I wondered if you know of 
anything in his record that demonstrates that he lost 
objectivity and was excessively rough on people in violent ways, 
and so forth? 

We've seen that in the movies a lot, you know. 
Somebody goes out and makes themselves a personal avenger 



52 

because a member of his family — doesn't have to be a 
policeman, but any family. 

But we don't have anything in the record. We asked 
him, and he said that he hadn't had one complaint in all these 
years. It seems to me that would speak pretty well for a person 
who's literally on the firing line. 

It's easier to be objective when you're so far 
removed from the firing line as to be on this Board, as opposed 
to being active, you know, out there in the field, or where ever 
he is in his police duties. 

MS. RODGER: But you have to remember, sir, that the 
policemen have one thought, and that's everybody's guilty. And 
there's another side to the story; there really is. 

And I am of a family, a victim family, so I can see 
where they can become very vindictive about the fact that their 
family member was victimized. But that's not being fair, that's 
not being just. 

And his wife serves on the Victims Rights Board. So, 
you've got an awful lot of ties there to the victims rights 
side, with no ties to the prisoners' side. 

That's where our concern is. It should be balanced. 
There should be ties on both sides. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I always thought that when I see 
an officer with someone in the back seat of the car that they're 
driving away, that all the citizens around are thinking, "Oh, 
yeah, there goes another presumptively innocent man. " 

[Laughter. ] 

MS. RODGER: And it's so easy to be considered 



53 

guilty. My son was picked up that way, and he had nothing to do 
with it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: But I can't go along with your 
conclusion. It's too broad and sweeping, that police think 
everybody's guilty. If they did, everybody in this room would 
in jail right now, or at least be under prosecution. 

I've always had a healthy arms-length dealing with 
the police. I've always been one who questions authority. I 
read the bumper strip. I don't have one, but I see it once in a 
while on the back of the car: Question Authority. I think it's 
a healthy attitude because the police have a lot of power, and 
they need to be held in check by the rest of us citizens. 

But I don't think that every cop thinks the first 
suspect that comes along is automatically guilty. The best of 
them, and they all strive for the higher standard, checks those 
things out very carefully. 

I think that maybe it ' s time to talk about that very 
popular and famous television series that lasted for so long, 
Gardner's books and stuff. What's his name? Perry Mason. 

I thought that did the greatest disservice to our 
justice system of any program I've seen, because it was just the 
opposite. Kind of like what you said: everybody who was 
suspected is guilty, Perry Mason showed that nobody who is 
suspected is guilty. 

I didn't think he was such a hot lawyer, but he was a 
hell of a detective. As a lawyer, he went out and found the 
guilty party, and conveniently arranged to have him sitting 
court during the trial . 



54 

I mean, that's so far removed from reality. I think 
it gave the wrong impression to the public, and I thought it was 
a great disservice to the public, and I was happy to see the 
series finally disappear, although I guess it's on some reruns. 

That doesn't do justice to the police, or the courts, 
or anybody. It shows that that fellow who played the detective 
— I forget his name — but the poor guy, I mean the prosecutor, 
he lost every case. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You'd think he wouldn't get 
re-elected; wouldn't you? 

SENATOR PETRIS: I mean, what does that do to our 
image of the police if we're going to go along with that? 

There are policemen out there who've served a 
lifetime, and they arrest all kinds of people, and they never 
win one case. They always get the wrong guy. 

So, I think that program stinks, frankly. 

I don't know what it has to do with this hearing. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR PETRIS: I got it off my chest. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you have anything else to add, 
or may we call on — 

MS. RODGER: The point I was trying to make, and I'd 
like to make it very strong and clear, is that we need to get 
the middle of the road. We need to get somebody on that Board 
that has some feelings for the prisoners . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: My intuition, more than anything, 
is that you've got it. This is the best, the very best, you're 
going to do with the current appointing authority. 



55 

And I hope he's as good as he sounds. I'm impressed. 
And, you know, that's perhaps another way of saying the Governor 
just got re-elected. 

We have some obligation in the balancing and weighing 
of things to extend ourselves to accommodate the perspectives 
and philosophy of the appointing power in the chief executive. 
We can say no on occasion, and we do, but those should be 
infrequent, and I think this is perhaps one of those 
circumstances. Actually, this is more than just, in my mind, 
comity with the Governor, but rather thinking we've got a fair 
guy here, as the first witness indicated. 

But I understand your concerns . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I'd like 
to add one observation. 

Again, emphasizing the appointing authority, I think 
the Governor needs to hear from people who are informed on 
what's going on inside and are concerned. 

I remember when Pat Brown was Governor. After he 
decided to appoint an individual to the court, he always asked 
them to do one thing before taking the oath: visit your local 
county jail and go visit the nearest state prison, and let's 
talk after that. And he delayed approving it until that 
happened; at least exposed him or her to that one experience. 

Now, maybe as attorneys they'd done it many times but 
he just wanted to be sure that they had it in mind in this new 
capacity for sentencing people. 

So, we do need to have that sensitivity, I certainly 
agree . 



56 

MS. RODGER: And I take your suggestion very 
seriously, and I will contact the Governor because they really 
do need to know. Many, many of your attorneys have never been 
in a prison, and they only talk to the prisoners. They don't 
get inside and know what's going on. And that's unfortunate. 

I inspect the prisons as a safety person and a 
compliance officer, so I've seen the inside as well as the 
outside. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Federal system? 

MS. RODGER: Yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just want to say that I understand 
what Senator Petris says about Governor Pat Brown asking 
perspective judges to visit the county and the state jails. 

I would like to propose that these people that commit 
murder, or other, do the same thing before they do it. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Some of them have already served 
time. 

MS. RODGER: They're doing that with some juveniles 
in our county to keep them from committing that crime, and it's 
effective. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your assistance. 

Did you want to add something? 

MS. HINES: I just wanted to oppose. 

Since everyone has so eloquently explained my 
feelings on the subject for my opposing Mr. Baker's 
confirmation, I don't guess there's much left to say except that 
I think as much of a police state as California is becoming, 
that to continue to put law enforcement on the Board is just 



57 

carrying it a little bit far, I think. 

As Ms. Rodger says, we do need more of the 
socioeconomic breakdown, more of a racial, more of a sexual, the 
whole thing has got to be changed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I failed to ask you to identify 
yourself . 

MS. HINES: Oh, my name is Caral Hines, and that's 
spelled C-a-r-a-1. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we've got your point. 
Thank you . 

Next. 

MS. RUDIGER: I was so remiss in waiting for three 
hours and not being heard, so I thought I would lend our support 
to Steve Baker. 

My name is Kelly Rudiger, and I serve as Executive 
Director of the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau. 

I am here today representing thousands of crime 
victims and advocates from across the state who know and have 
witnessed the dedication and character of Mr. Steve Baker. 

I'm here to give you a personal view of the work and 
commitment Steve Baker has contributed to the welfare and the 
citizens of California. Over the past few years, I have had the 
opportunity and the privilege to work alongside Steve on a 
variety of public safety issues. 

I want to emphasize that as a crime victim survivor, 
we have f irst-handedly paid the highest price of crime — the 
life of a lost loved one — ■ and it ' s our top priority to promote 
the legal right of all individuals to safeguard our society from 



58 

future violent acts of crime. 

But becoming a crime victim does not make you an 
expert on the issue. The reason I am here today is to promote 
the confirmation of a concerned citizen who has seen the 
tragedies caused both as a police office and the father of a 
murdered child by releasing violent felons when they are still a 
threat to our public safety. 

This is why Steve's background, community service, 
and professional career as a San Diego police officer and 
detective have made him an expert on this issue. He has 
experience to make tough decisions, and the background to make 
the right decisions. 

I feel very honored today to be here speaking on 
behalf of Steve as a friend, a colleague, and we are all lucky 
to have such a knowledgeable man willing to commit himself to 
this job. He warrants your vote of confidence in this 
confirmation hearing. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. That's helpful, I 
guess . 

Did you want to close, conclude in any way? I think 
we're ready to proceed to a vote, Mr. Baker. 

MR. BAKER: I will submit it. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'll move. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala makes the motion 
that we recommend confirmation. Call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Aye. 



59 

SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Petris Aye. Senator Beverly. 

SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Aye. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. We appreciate 
your public service. 

MR. BAKER: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Ruggles , Worker Comp. Appeal 
Board. Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. RUGGLES: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything you want to begin with by 
way of introduction or anything? 

MR. RUGGLES: Well, I did make a couple of notes. I 
thought I'd better write it down. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

MR. RUGGLES: This is unfamiliar forum today. 

Good afternoon, and I appreciate the opportunity to 
be here this afternoon. 

As some of you may be aware, I come to this position 
from a career in and around the real estate industry. It 
started with CB Commercial, the old Caldwell Banker, then went 
into construction as a laborer, carpenter, in sales and 
development, then into mortgage banking before I started my own 



60 

little company to invest in and develop industrial property. 

When that business became unprofitable in the mid to 
late '80s, I decided to let that be it as far as my career in 
the commercial world was concerned. But I was not ready to 
retire, and determined to try and find something in the public 
sector that would allow me to use my experience, judgment, 
common sense, what I feel is a sense of fairness, to deal with 
an issue of long-term and basic importance to the public. 

When the Governor offered me this opportunity last 
winter, it seemed to fit the bill. Although I don't bring to 
this position any particular direct experience with workers ' 
compensation, I do bring some familiarity with some of the 
elements involved, having grown up in a medical family, having 
dealt with a variety of legal and some insurance issues in 
connection with my business, and in dealing with people in 
determining their credibility and negotiating differences to 
bring about a balanced conclusion. 

What I have not brought to this Board, however, is 
any particular ideology or a personal agenda. I feel I was 
appointed to this lay position on the Board to be an impartial 
representative of the people of California, to use my common 
sense, and I think I've — and I've endeavored to do that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just kind of reverse order 
and ask if there's anyone present that would wish to comment, 
either for or opposed to the confirmation of Mr. Ruggles . 

Seeing none, then to ask Members if they have any 
questions to pose. 

And hearing none, asking Members if anyone desires to 



61 

make a motion? 

SENATOR PETRIS: He's from my district. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's good for a motion here, 
sir. I think that's what it was. 

SENATOR PETRIS: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion. 

This is pretty good. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Tough fight. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You know, they wore us down, all 
those ones ahead of you. 

MR. RUGGLES: I didn't even have to face such an 
important decision when I was given the appointment, as Senator 
Petris did. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just so you'll know, part of our 
homework is to hear or solicit the evaluations of numerous 
groups and individuals that do business before you, and your 
reputation precedes you as diligent, hard working, honest, 
careful, competent, and fair. 

And I heard those things and thought, okay, this is 
going to be a quick one, and I've now talked longer thank all 
combined. 

So, we'll take Senator Petris ' s motion. If there's 
no objection, may we substitute the role. All right, five yeses 
and no noes . 

[Thereupon the previous roll 
was substituted, and the 
confirmation was recommended 
with the vote of 5-0.] 



62 

MR. RUGGLES: I had planned to say a couple of things 
at the conclusion, but I'll just say thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, sir. 

Dr. Smith is our remaining appointee, and I guess 
Senator Russell wished to join us. 

Dr. Smith, you might come on up, if you would wish 
to, and we can insert Senator Russell, perhaps, whenever he gets 
here. 

Did you have anything you wanted to begin with, any 
statements or thoughts? 

DR. SMITH: Certainly for the sake of moving the 
process along, I would just like to say — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd recommend you take your time, 
because this isn't going to be a fast one. 

DR. SMITH: Thank you. 

My background is one of, I spent 25 years with Bank 
of America. And my background is certainly in the area of 
management . 

I would like for each and every one of you to know 
that my children attend public schools in the State of 
California. I am certainly a friend of public education. 

I have spent a number of years in my community 
involved with public schools. In fact, I was the Chairperson 
for a kindergarten program for four-year-old children in the 
State of California, and it has since become a model program for 
other school districts within the state. 

I served my school board in the Pasadena community 
for some four years. It has been said that I was somewhat 



63 

divisive. I guess, coming from a school district where 80 
percent of the students were performing at a D or less grade 
point average, being divisive somehow meant that you were very 
interested and certainly believed that all children could learn, 
then certainly I was divisive. 

If it also meant that I was certainly concerned about 
making sure that the community understood how poorly our school 
district was doing, and certainly trying to solicit their 
support and their energies in joining me and making change, if 
that's considered divisive, yes, I was divisive on my school 
board . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What changes occurred while you 
were there, or what were the issues that you would characterize 
as divisive? 

DR. SMITH: We did things such as, in my community we 
were doing our general ledger once a semester. Coming from a 
business background and also teaching at the local community 
college, I taught in the School of Business how to run and 
operate your own business as well as finance management. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We just said we'd start to use our 
time well, but get you in the mix here whenever you showed up. 

Sorry, we kind of ended the prior discussion a little 
more abruptly than anticipated. 

SENATOR RUSSELL: I just wanted to introduce Wilbert 
to you. He's a friend of mine and a constituent. 

I think he's an outstanding person and will do a good 
job. 

I don't know how much he's told you about himself, 



64 

1 but he is a native of Los Angeles. He's got a Master's degree, 

2 a Bachelor's degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy. 

3 He worked at the Bank of America for 24 years, 

4 starting in the mail room at age 17. He worked his way up to 

5 Vice President and Director of National Accounts for its 

6 Business Services Division. 

7 He ' s a high achiever. He's received many numerous 

8 awards, including the CEO's Eagle Award, the highest award 

9 offered by Bank of America. 

10 He's active in his community. He's a reserve deputy 

11 sheriff and has been for 15 years. Part of his duties in that 

12 capacity has included three years of service on the drug abuse 

13 detail, providing drug counseling for juveniles and adults in 

14 schools and community programs . He has been an instructor in 

15 the School of Business at Pasadena Community College, and he's 

16 been a member of the Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts and 

17 was appointed by then-Governor Deukmejian to the California 

18 Child Development Advisory Council. 

19 He also served a four-year term on the school board 

20 in Pasadena. Prior to that, he was active as a private citizen 

21 in raising private funds for a pre-kindergarten program for 

22 four-year olds, and that program has apparently become a model 

23 throughout the state and is used in many places . And as a 

24 result of that, that led to his election to the four-year term 

25 on the school board to which I just alluded. 

26 He has run for Superintendent of Public Instruction 
this last time. In a field of 13, he came in third, just one 
percent behind Maureen DiMarco. So, he showed well in that 



27 
28 



65 

capacity. 

His wife, Susan, lives in Pasadena and they have 
three children. 

I have known him in the community. He's a man of 
strong principles, and I think he would do an outstanding job. 

I appreciate the opportunity you've given me to 
present him to you, maybe after the fact, but nevertheless, I 
thoroughly endorse him and did so in the last election. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Lewis . 

SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Russell, just a quick 
question based on your knowledge of Dr. Smith in the community. 

I understand one of the raps on him from the 
opponents is that he's a divisive individual. Does he have that 
reputation in the community? 

SENATOR RUSSELL: I have never seen that part of him, 
but I would say this, that the Pasadena School Board was 
dominated — it's a five-person board. It was dominated by four 
individuals who happen to be members of the Democratic Party, 
and Wilbert is a Republican. And obviously, there's going to be 
a clash of philosophies. 

And when somebody's outnumbered in that regard, and 
you can expect someone who ' s worth his salt to stand up for his 
principles and try to encourage the colleagues to see it his 
way. 

So, if that's being divisive, then I suppose in that 
context he would be termed guilty, because he is a man of strong 
principles and strong beliefs. 



66 

But I think he relates well to people in the 
community activities in which I have seen him. I have never 
seen him be abrasive or divisive, or anything of that nature. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, I don't want to prolong 
this segment of the discussion, but I'm puzzled in this respect. 

It's a nonpartisan office, school board. Just my own 
history of having served on my local school board, I think — - 
I'm not sure what they all were — but I think I fought the most 
with one of the other Democrats, and worked together the best 
with the two Republicans. 

I don't see how that's an explanation, that he's a 
Republican and the others were Democrats with respect to 
controversies that might come before a school board, unless you 
can think of a specific controversy that comes to mind that 
might have been partisan. 

SENATOR RUSSELL: I was not that close to the 
Pasadena School Board in their deliberations. This is just an 
assumption on my part that that might lend itself to that 
accusation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It might, and I guess the ethical 
question I've heard posed is this, and we'll have Dr. Smith 
comment when it's appropriate, is that he was a registered 
Republican, talked about considered running for school board. 
Others said, "You're going to have a difficult time in this 
community with both voters and endorsements you wish unless you 
re-register as a Democrat," which the record suggests he did 
prior to his candidacy, and then re-registered as a Republican 
again two weeks after being elected. 



67 

Now, maybe that's what caused some comment. I would 
suggest that's not a partisan issue but an ethical one. 

I want to let Dr. Smith comment on that as soon as we 
conclude with the Senator. 

SENATOR RUSSELL: I'm not aware of that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We were just beginning to ask, 
what were the controversies while you were on the school board. 
That's when you came in, so we'll go back to that. 

And thank you. Your statement was typically good. 

SENATOR RUSSELL: Thank you. I appreciate your 
consideration of Wilbert. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What were the controversies during 
those four years of a policy sort, I assume, not a partisan 
sort, but either way? 

DR. SMITH: I ran into trouble, Senator, when I 
advocated that we should run our school district like a 
business. When I indicated that we were running some $132 
million through the turnstile, and that if we spent more than we 
brought in, we were going to go out of business like any other 
business. That we should invest in our employees. That we 
should look to strengthen our real estate portfolio to take a 
look at those assets that we had available to us that we weren't 
managing very effectively. 

We were in the business of looking for land to sell 
versus looking for land to lease, because when you lease a piece 
of property, we all know that you cannot spend — you can use 
those dollars for anything. But once you sell a piece of 
property, it must be used for capital expenditures only. 



68 

These kinds of things that I employed in my classroom 
on a daily basis, I tried to bring to the school district. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was investing in employees 
mean in your mind? 

DR. SMITH: Teacher academies. I've been a member of 
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the last 16 
years. One of the things we always believe in, as at Bank of 
America the same thing applied, that the employee is your 
strength. And I wanted to see that we had an opportunity to 
make sure that a teacher who had been in the classroom for many 
years, got an opportunity to see the latest and most innovative 
techniques that were out there in the teaching field, as well as 
how do you — working with law enforcement, and how do we work 
with children who are involved with drugs , and how do we deal 
with the drug babies that are now students in our system. That 
sort of thing. 

I felt a tremendous frustration on behalf of 
teachers, that they didn't have the kind of training they 
required. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I haven't heard an issue that 
would necessarily be disruptive or provocative. 

DR. SMITH: No, no. That was just something that 
some pegged. 

I had in my community — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were there a lot of four-to-one 
votes? 

DR. SMITH: A lot of four-to-one votes on a couple of 
issues, yes. 



69 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Give me an example. 

DR. SMITH: One was the fact that we only had 6,000 
students; 5,700 high school students in the entire community, 
yet we had five high schools that we were operating. 

I believed that we had an opportunity to consolidate 
at some of those schools because we were canceling classes in a 
major way because we didn't have enough students to hold those 
classes . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: School closures are always 
difficult. 

DR. SMITH: That was a very difficult one, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If I asked one of the other four 
to tell an issue that they thought you were out of touch with 
the community, what do you think they would say? 

DR. SMITH: I would say to you that the majority of 
those on the other side of the aisle it's simply because of my 
belief that parents should have the opportunity to walk away 
from schools that aren't performing well. And that's where I 
would philosophically differ with most educators. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did that come up at the time? 

DR. SMITH: Oh, yes, it did; absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: While you were a board member? 

DR. SMITH: Yes, while I was a board member. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know you had a prepared 
statement. 

DR. SMITH: No, I don't, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. 

One of the issues that we routinely ask of those that 



10 

11 



70 

1 will serve as Regents, or Community College Governors, or State 
College Trustees, is their views with regard to fees. 

3 I willing to ask it in a very open ended way, or more 

4 direct specific way, depending on what would be easiest for you 

5 to just help us understand what your perspectives are regarding 

6 community college fees? 

7 DR. SMITH: I believe there has to be some sort of 

8 income flow coming in that will supplement those dollars that 

9 are provided by our government . 

In doing our cost benefit kind of analysis, we have 

to determine, from a business perspective, what that fee should 

12 \ be. There has been very limited discussion since my time on the 

13 | Board with respect to fees. 

14 I understand there was a much larger discussion that 

15 I occurred prior to me coming on the Board. 

16 I have taken a look at things such as deferred 

17 maintenance, the millions of dollars that we need to spend on 

18 f our infrastructure, examining the fact that at any given Board 

19 meeting, we will find that schools are requesting more and more. 

20 | There are certain schools who do not have facilities large 

21 i enough to house the demand by the students . 

22 We've got to toy with each and every one of these 

23 | areas to make our determination in terms of what ' s the best 

24 j allocation of the dollars that we do have. And certainly, are 

25 we using the dollars that we have in the wisest fashion 

26 ! available. 

27 I believe that we need to take a look at innovation 
and innovative kinds of approaches with respect to junior 



28 



71 

colleges before we just find ourselves, as I believe we have 
been in the past, of just simply shelling dollars out. 

So, I believe, and specifically summing up your 
question with respect to fees, I believe there needs to be a fee 
that is charged. However, what that fee happens to be is part 
of that cost benefit analysis. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have any preliminary sense 
of whether the current $13 a unit, I guess is the current fee — 

DR. SMITH: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — whether that's too high, too 
low? 

DR. SMITH: Our current fee structure has shut 
certain students out of the system, so it is incumbent upon us 
to make sure that every dollar that we have is spent as wisely 
as we possibly can, and for us to look for opportunities to 
reduce fees . 

Fees should only be there to supplement the 
requirement, and I underline the word requirement, not to 
supplement waste or mismanagement . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How much waste or mismanagement is 
there in the system? 

DR. SMITH: There's certainly a — I won't say 
tremendous. That might be the wrong phrase to use, but there is 
waste; there is mismanagement, to the degree of, a lot of our 
mismanagement is a lack of understanding how to run and operate 
a business, a lack of management skills, not so much something 
that's flagrantly occurring on behalf of our staff and employees 
up and down the state . 



72 

I believe that we've got to have technology enter the 
arena in a major way, and we've got to figure out ways to make 
that happen. 

But I believe that we — our goal has got to be that 
we can continue to do a better job in managing the meager funds 
that are available. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Everyone on this side of the table 
has probably, at one time or another, discussed education in 
those terms. And it's insufficient to get a clear sense of the 
way in which a specific issue might be handled. 

I don't know how to pin it down better, other than to 
ask from your observations of community colleges you've visited, 
programs you've looked at, work on the Community College Board 
of Governors, tell me specific items of waste that you would 
wish to eliminate. 

DR. SMITH: I have taught in the classroom at the 
Pasadena Community College. Some of the things that I believe 
that I would take a look at are, just one simple example would 
be there's no clearing house for innovative approaches and 
innovative techniques . 

Each and every college, as I see it, is out there, 
trying to reinvent the exact same wheel . That is not only 
costly, but it is not a wise way to do business. 

So, I believe we need an innovative approach. 

I also believe that you will find in our public 
education arena that it ' s about the only arena where we try to 
be all things to the business. We're the plumber; we're the 
electrician; we are the gardener; we are the educator; we are 



73 

the painter. We build the buildings. We do everything. 

And I believe that no other business does that. I 
think other businesses say, what is the best use of our time and 
our dollars? What do we do best? 

So, I believe that that's one area that we need to 
take a look at seriously, and that is contracting out for those 
services that are better provided by the private sector at a 
more cost effective fashion. I believe, historically speaking, 
anytime you find that the private sector engages the government 
sector, prices go down and quality will increase. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would be an example of 
something you would firmly or tentatively recommend with respect 
to current expenditures that might benefit in the way you 
indicate by contracting out? 

DR. SMITH: One would be, you find most companies in 
the accounting, financial accounting arena, you will find that 
they are not doing their own payroll. They're not doing their 
own personnel work. They're not doing their own general ledger 
work. They're not doing the accounts payable. They're not 
doing the accounts receivable. That's just one arena. 

But yet you will find that we are not only building 
the strongest MIS Department that we can, but MIS has nothing to 
do with actually delivering education. It's a cost to the 
organization. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If the test is what's education or 
not, would you be able to distinguish between the financial 
services and the groundsmen or the janitors, or the painters and 
plumbers, the list you had mentioned at the start. Would those 



74 

be potential areas of change? 

DR. SMITH: Senator, I believe that nothing should be 
immune from our analysis when it comes to how we're going to 
spend the public's money. I believe we are mandated to find the 
most cost effective approaches that we possibly can to save 
every tax dollar on behalf of the citizenry of the State of 
California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there other questions from 
colleagues? 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes, I'd like to ask the doctor, 
Doctor, are you against public education? 

DR. SMITH: For me to say that I'm against public 
education is to say I'm against my own children. For me to say 
I'm against public education is for me not to — in fact, the 
part of my life which has not been indicated to you today is 
that I have started a nonprofit foundation, called the Up and 
Coming Foundation. Our sole reason for existing is when the 
Pasadena Unified School District says to us that a child has 
been absent for 45 days, we go and we knock on the door of that 
young person, and we're trying to convince them to return to a 
public school sponsored program that we're housing at one of the 
local churches. 

I say to you that everything that I am doing, even 
when I have spoken on behalf of the choice initiative, I started 
each presentation with the fact that I believe that this would 
strengthen public education. 

SENATOR AYALA: Excuse me. The voucher system would 
enhance public education? 



75 

1 DR. SMITH: I believe that it would strengthen public 

2 education. 

3 SENATOR AYALA: Would you explain that to me, because 

4 I think you're wrong. Go ahead. 

5 DR. SMITH: And it's okay for us to disagree, 

6 Senator. 

7 I believe that one of the things that we must do is 

8 certainly realize that in the sense and the spirit of the 

9 debates, our bottom line is that we're looking to do the best 

10 that we can for children. If we both agree that we're going to 

11 try to drive to the East Coast, and you take the northerly route 

12 and I take the southerly route, I think the thing that unifies 

13 us is our mission. 

14 I believe that any time we have an opportunity to 

15 just take a look at the influx of students coming into the 

16 system. It's been projected that by the year 2005, we'll have 

17 to build one school each day between now and the year 2005. 

18 SENATOR AYALA: I don't disagree with what you're 

19 saying, except that I don't agree with the way you're going to 

20 get there . 

21 How can you tell me that you can spend public funds 

22 for private schools? That's unconstitutional. 

23 DR. SMITH: No, sir. 

24 SENATOR AYALA: You don't think it is? 

25 DR. SMITH: I would say to you, and this is where we 

26 could have a friendly debate . 

27 SENATOR AYALA: Sure. 

28 DR. SMITH: There have been a number of cases that 



8 



76 

1 have come before the Supreme Court, and they have stated that it 

2 is not in violation of the Constitution. And the reason it 

3 isn't is because the parents, the parent chooses where the child 

4 goes to school, not the state. And the voucher is sent, or the 

5 scholarship is sent actually to the parent. Delivered to the 

6 school, but it's not sent directly to the school. 

7 SENATOR AYALA: You know, we had a big battle about 
busing here a few years ago. And you're going to tell me we can 

9 bus this kid from over here to the school over here because the 

10 parents like this school better. 

11 Now, that's okay for people who can afford busing 

12 kids back and forth, but what about the parents who cannot bus 

13 someone from area of the city to the other? They don't have the 

14 I choice. They've got to stay where they are. 

15 How can you tell me that that ' s in the best interests 

16 of our students? 

17 DR. SMITH: Senator, I would say to you that if I 
were to design a system, it would have been different than 

19 Proposition 174. If I were to take a look at some of the things 

20 that — 

21 SENATOR AYALA: Are you changing your mind on that 

22 position you took on 174 now? 

23 DR. SMITH: I'm saying to you that I felt that it was 

24 better than the status quo, but if I were to design my own 

25 system, it would have a number of things in there differently 
that would take into account a number of the things that you're 
raising. 

SENATOR AYALA: But if the poor folks in the poor 



26 

27 
28 



77 

areas of a city could not afford to take their kids to what they 
consider a better school, what do we have left in that school? 
Only those students that the parents can't afford to transport 
them somewhere else. 

I don't consider that enhancement of public 
education. 

DR. SMITH: Senator, I was fortunate enough to be 
part of working with a group of ministers, and there was 
approximately 150 or so around the table when we were discussing 
this. They were part of the Southern California Baptists 
Convention. 

And they were very excited about opening their own 
schools. They were not interested in saying, "I hope someone 
accepts my child across town because I'm going to take the 
facilities that were present in the community. " 

And certainly, the concern has to be, if there's 
going to be enough of those kinds of scenarios . 

But truly, individuals want to be in public schools. 
Kids want to be in public schools, with the big bands are, the 
big orchestras, et cetera. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have no problem with choice, but I 
don't want public funds supporting those choices that are not, 
in my opinion and the opinion of many, constitutional. That's 
why we have a Constitution. You cannot provide public funds for 
private schools. 

And every Tom, Dick and Harry can start one under the 
voucher system. And there's no oversight. They don't know what 
they're doing. They can disappear in two years, and what about 



78 

those kids left behind? Where do they go from there? 

DR. SMITH: But truly, truly, I think that we're 
talking — in the junior college arena, we have choice. So, I 
don't really believe it's going to be an issue there at the 
community college level. 

I believe all students can choose the school that 
they choose to go to, and we're certainly going to send funding 
to that particular school. 

SENATOR AYALA: But again, I go back, and afterwards 
I'm going to be quiet. 

There is no public funds going for schools that are 
not public schools. 

DR. SMITH: That's right. 

SENATOR AYALA: And your proposition of the voucher 
system supported by many people — not enough, thank God — 
would provide public funds for private schools, which, if I want 
to start a school, I get funded. That's not quite the way it 
was meant . 

Public school, we ought to improve the public schools 
as much as we can, enhance the public schools themselves, not by 
deteriorating by taking away students . 

DR. SMITH: If I may respectfully say, Senator, I'm 
working very hard to improve public schools. And that's what 
this program that I'm working with on a daily basis is involved 
in, and that's the Foundation. We go after kids who dropped 
out. I volunteer at my children's school. My children attend 
public schools. 

I would certainly hope that we don't debate an issue 



9 
10 



79 

1 that did not pass. It's in the past. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: But it's coming up again, I'm afraid. 

3 But we'll be better prepared for it this next time around. 

4 But you confuse me when you tell me that you want to 

5 improve public schools, and you support the voucher schools that 

6 are deteriorating — 

7 DR. SMITH: I can take the time to go into that and 

8 explain my position, if you would like for me to do that. 

I simply believe, if you take a look at — no one's 

looking at the overcrowded conditions . No one ' s looking at the 

11 fact that we're going to have 50 kids in a classroom by the turn 

12 of the century. I see absolutely no plan out there. I don't 

13 hear us talking about it in the Legislature. I don't hear these 

14 kinds of things . 

15 I don't believe that we have a plan. And I believe 

16 for us to sit back and wait for this tidal wave to occur of 

17 young students — 

18 SENATOR AYALA: But we do have a plan. We've got 

19 voucher schools that are governed by school boards today under 

20 the Hart bill. Those are schools which are — 

21 DR. SMITH: The charter schools? 

22 SENATOR AYALA: Charter schools. It's the beginning 

23 of that sort of thing. But they are only allowed to function if 

24 the school board allows them to, and they have all the controls 

25 \ of that. 

26 The voucher system would have put the schools out 

27 there where nobody could touch them, and be accountable to no 

28 one . 



80 

1 I just don't understand how you tell me you're 

enhancing public education by deterioration of the public school 

3 by putting out, you know, the private schools. You confuse me. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Respond in whatever ways you think 

5 are sufficient to explain your philosophies. You won't change 

6 Senator Ayala's on this point, but I want to make sure you have 
1 a fair opportunity to make any comment or explanation with 

8 respect to support of Prop. 174. 

9 DR. SMITH: One of the things that I spoke very much 

10 about was the number of students that we are projected to have 

11 coming into our system. Our Finance Department says for the 

12 first time in the history of the State of California, we've got 

13 five tax dependents for every four taxpayers. I don't 

14 understand how we expect to have increasing revenues in the 

15 State of California. 

16 I believe we've got to look for every opportunity to 

17 partnership with the private sector. In these partnerships, 

18 what we would be doing is drawing upon the millions of square 

19 feet that are vacant up and down the State of California. 

20 We're not in the business of building buildings. So, 

21 I believe that we need to work out a plan. 

22 If it wasn't 174, it's got to be a better one, but 

23 we've got to put our shoulders to the wheel to come up with what 

24 that plan should be. But we're got to be prepared to address 
the tidal wave of students in the system today. 

If we took a look at building one school each day 
between now and the year 2005, just to keep our class sizes at 
their existing level, that's going to cost us $32 billion. And 



25 
26 
27 
28 



81 

that 32 billion does nothing but build the building. 

We know our largest incremental costs are salaries 
and benefits, so we've got a tremendous thing, a burden that's 
going to be upon us in the State of California. 

I believe that's when we're going to drain the bottom 
line of public education in a major way, because we will not be 
able to house these students and educate them. So what do we 
do? If we had an opportunity to be proactive, to find the 
partnership that says not only can you save dollars by educating 
a kid in the private sector, but you also create a spirit of 
competition. 

You see, I don't believe that this an issue for 
Beverly Hills Unified School District. The reason it isn't, 
because the teachers in those communities — I'm sorry, the 
parents in those communities have the ability to exercise their 
rights as consumers. When education does not occur, the parents 
can take their children away, and they've got the dollars to do 
that. 

This is an issue for the urban area, because those 
parents cannot exercise their right as consumers, and they have 
to deal with everything that's thrown at them. In those 
communities, you will have little Johnny come home, and the 
parent does not have the mind set to say, "Little Johnny, what 
did you learn today?" They say, "Thank God, Johnny's alive." 
That ' s how bad it is in these urban environments . 

So, I believe if we can exercise and actually put 
into the pockets of those parents the ability to walk away from 
poor schools, you'll find public education will improve because 



82 

no one wants to lose students, and I believe today we too 
frequently look at those children as dollar signs, and we could 
care less what happens to them, for the most part. 

We've got some great teachers out there. Don't get 
me wrong. But I don't know if we're that concerned about them 
in terms of what they are actually learning. 

I want to change that . And that ' s my thrust on the 
Community Colleges' Board of Governors. I believe I've taken a 
leadership role in that body. I have brought to the table a 
foundation of a business perspective. 

We talk about how we can work closer together. We 
talk more — I'm one of the ones responsible for the retreat 
that we're getting ready to undergo next month, and we're going 
to talk about things that make it that much more cohesive as a 
body. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Petris and then Senator 
Lewis . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Yesterday, I heard a report on the 
radio that Chrysler Motors showed a $1.7 billion profit this 
last year. 

And I remembered that a few years back, Chrysler 
Motors was in such bad shape that they had to be bailed out by 
the taxpayer. 

So, I get nervous when I hear somebody say, "We've 
got to run this like a business." I'd like to know which 
business you're talking about. 

As a lawyer for years, I handled a lot of 
bankruptcies. An awful lot of clients came to me who went broke 



83 

because they didn't know how to run a business. I'd hate to 
have them in charge of the school system or any other public 
agency, for that matter. They just didn't learn the ropes, and 
they paid for it. 

So, if you've got some principles, some of which you 
enunciated in the beginning, that ' d be fine. But I'm very 
nervous about the phrase, "You ought to run this outfit like a 
business." I want to know which business, because there are an 
awful lot of businesses that are very poorly run, from the Mom 
and Pop grocery, all the way up to General Motors. 

You'll find waste and mismanagement at every level of 
a lot of companies . Some companies do a lot better than others . 

So, I need some more specific guidance. You started 
on it, and I think you made some good points, that we should 
watch expenditures, and revenues, and so forth. 

But it isn ' t always easy to apply the same rule to a 
public agency, whose mission is totally different from business. 
First of all, business is very cruel. The image I have of 
corporate America is a bunch of savages who don't give a darn 
about people, and the minute they have a problem, they start 
wiping them out, fire them, without any regard to how many years 
they've been with the company. It's a long story. I won't 
burden you with it now. 

But it raises the hackles when I hear that, and I see 
business often taking the easiest way out, and that is 
eliminating people. 

Other countries don't do that. They prosper just as 
much as we do, and in some cases much better. They have a more 



84 

humane approach to solving their problems . They take a 
temporary dip, they hang onto their employees. They don't just 
start firing them, right and left. 

"Well, that's the American way. You've got to cut." 

Well, I don't think that's the proper way to go. If 
that's what you mean, that everytime we hit a bump we're going 
to fire a lot of people, I'm not prepared to go along with you. 

DR. SMITH: Senator, I certainly am not indicating 
that we are not a user-friendly environment, that we're serving 
our public. 

Senator, I'm concerned when a school board meets, and 
it's not willing to talk about the real issues that the public 
is discussing. 

SENATOR PETRIS: They should be unelected. 

DR. SMITH: That's correct. I agree with you, 
absolutely. 

SENATOR PETRIS: And they have been in some parts of 
the state, you know. They throw them out. 

DR. SMITH: Yes, I agree with you there. We have no 
difference in that arena. 

But certainly, I will say to you that I am talking 
about very simplistic things and business practices, I guess, 
more than just calling this a business. 

I believe that when you run $132 million through the 
turnstile, if you don't exercise certain business practices and 
certain business principles, that we're going to run into 
trouble . And I think that ' s our problem up and down the state 
in a number of our school districts, because we don't have the 



85 

leadership at the helm in our board and in our 

superintendences, et cetera, but I hold our boards responsible 
for that. And ultimately, I hold our constituencies responsible 
for that because they are not electing the most qualified 
possible. 

But when we talk about just simple principles like 
not balancing your general ledger, forcing balances instead of 
doing it the right way, not having a plan, not having a 
three-year plan, a five-year plan, a ten-year plan with clear 
goals and objectives in terms of how we're going to — what are 
we doing today to get ourselves there, if public education 
realized that it truly plans to be around and plans to be doing 
business 35, 40, 50, a hundred years from today, we've got to be 
able to clearly articulate what are we doing today to prepare 
ourselves for that. Are we waiting for it to become reactive, 
or continue to be reactive as we are in public education, versus 
becoming a proactive body? 

The State of California is looking to the Board of 
Governors of Community Colleges for leadership. It looks for us 
to set the basic agenda. And if we are not willing and don't 
have the courage to set that agenda, then I think we're going to 
continue to get more of what we already have. And I believe if 
you continue to do what you've always done, you're going to 
continue to get what you already have. We don't like what we 
have, it's time to make a change. 

And I'm trying to bring a different perspective to 
the Board. Some of us have expertise; some of us are teachers; 
some of us have expertise in the legal field. I have expertise 



86 

in the business community. I've worked with people. I've had 
thousands of employees as staff members, and I've understood the 
value of investing in them. And that is the reason I'm a member 
of this Board, and I'd like to continue to be a member of this 
Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Dr. Smith, I believe there's 16 
members on the Board of Governors of the California Community 
College system. 

DR. SMITH: Yes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Without naming names, I wouldn't want 
to do any irreparable damage to their future confirmation 
hearings, can you tell me if there's anybody else on the Board 
that you know that publicly endorsed Proposition 174? 

DR. SMITH: Probably at least 50 percent, minimum. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Fifty percent? 

DR. SMITH: Minimum. 

SENATOR LEWIS: That publicly endorsed? 

DR. SMITH: I would say so, yes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Were any of those confirmed to your 
knowledge? 

DR. SMITH: Yes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Subsequent to the — 

DR. SMITH: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Before I got here, I'll be real 
clear about that. Before I got here. 

So, it may be relevant to you, John, but it sure 
isn't to me. I know where to draw the line, and it is 



87 

abundantly clear to me. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Which line is that? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's an active advocate for the 
voucher system I will never vote to entrust public 
responsibilities to manage the great public school systems in 
this state. I think they're satanic in terms of — and that's a 
stupid word, so I apologize for using it. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I thought we were getting a rerun of 
the commercials, or something. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, we're getting my Christian 
righteousness as an active Episcopalian. 

I think they undermine and destroy the institution 
that they have a responsibility to foster because of their 
inherent conflict in basic approach and philosophy. 

That's my generic concern. Now, I've got a long list 
in addition to that with respect to Dr. Smith, which we'll get 
to shortly. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Well, reasonable people can disagree, 
and I think Dr. Smith has made a very articulate case for the 
benefits of the voucher system, certainly for people in the 
inner city. 

But I just don't understand, just because Dr. Smith 
endorsed Proposition 174, the voucher initiative, why that 
should be the guiding decision as to whether or not he'll be 
confirmed or not to the Board of Governors of the California 
Community Colleges. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I haven't heard anyone argue 
that that should be the only criteria applied, but it certainly 



88 

is a relevant one to assess his philosophy and perspective, 
along with every other consideration. 

I'd say, I wish you were my friend, not someone I 
have to vote on to entrust this responsibility to. You're 
enormously bright, and interesting, and articulate, and have a 
wonderful presence. So, maybe even after I do this dreadful 
thing to you, we will still work at that. And I have the utmost 
respect, as a close friend of Howard Phillips, and people like 
that, for bright, conservative perspectives. 

I'm troubled by a lot of the specifics. 

I didn't want to cut you off if you had more you 
wanted to add. You probably made your point, I guess. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Well, I guess the other point I would 
make is, I've received a fair amount of mail from some of the 
opponents, and I believe they're sitting in the back of the 
room, opposing Dr. Smith's confirmation. 

It just seems to me that Dr. Smith is a very bright 
and a very innovative thinker. He's very articulate. He's 
answered every question so far today in a manner that ' s been 
very, very impressive. 

But unfortunately for you, Dr. Smith, you're a 
Republican; you're a conservative Republican; you're a 
conservative Republican that endorsed Prop. 174, and you're a 
black conservative Republican that endorsed Prop. 174. That 
makes you a very dangerous man. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, John. 

SENATOR AYALA: Makes him an extremist. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Frankly, that the most disgraceful 



89 

thing I've ever heard you do, Senator, and I just want to make 
note of my disagreement. 

We can ask for testimony, either pro or con. I would 
at least ask for pro in this kind of a circumstance. 

The opposition, some of whom are in the room, have 
letters on file, and I think that the Committee is prepared to 
vote, unless there's someone that feels that they're anxious to 
make an additional comment. 

I wouldn't want to discourage support statements, but 
I don't think it helps to hear opposition comments. 

In asking for a motion by any Member of the 
Committee, let me just summarize my own thoughts. 

It is that I think I have as profound a disagreement 
with any confirmation that I've seen so far with you with 
respect to approach, analysis and philosophy. I do agree that 
there is a great value in having business expertise and 
perspectives reflected on governing boards. And certainly, we 
need to do a better job of reforming education and of using tax 
monies in efficient ways. 

It seems to me to be an almost consuming passion that 
that's so compelling for you that the business approach, 
efficiency, is the highest value, that often human values are 
secondary. 

DR. SMITH: Senator, you couldn't be further from 
where I ' m trying to come from . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, let me just conclude, and 
I'll happy to have you respond. 

So, I listened to the comments. I think they reflect 



90 

a lack of balance, and then I would have specific disagreements 
with respect to your enthusiasm for contracting out, which I 
think all too often marginalizes employees and ends benefits in 
order to expand profit or control costs. 

I was dissatisfied with your analysis of potential 
increases in student fees. And of course, voucher education, 
which is just another form of contracting out, privatization, 
is, I think, as fundamental an issue as any in our society. 

My own thought is this, one, I'm sure, about which we 
will disagree. But it is that in an increasingly complex and 
diverse society, we have to look for the things that pull us 
together. Privatization does the opposite, and it's a world 
view that I think causes retribalization, fragmentation, lack of 
community, and ultimate destruction of a modern diverse society. 

I regard the public schools, or the public domain 
generally, but the public schools particularly, as the most 
promising opportunity to accomplish those goals of community and 
creating a civilized California. 

I am sorry a person of your intellect sees another 
way, and I certainly respect everyone's right to chart their own 
course. I just think that I don't have to concur with that with 
my own vote and choose to exercise it by saying no today. 

DR. SMITH: May I respond? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Certainly, sir. 

DR. SMITH: You said it's compelling. Let me tell 
you why it's compelling. 

It's compelling because I've sat on school boards and 
watched us cut such basic services. It's compelling because I 



91 

see us cut out and have teachers buying supplies, yet I see over 
here tremendous amounts of waste. 

So, what you may be suggesting to me is, because I 
indicate that waste, and a union happens to say that you're 
touching our sacred domain, that I should now fall in line with 
that at the sake of these kids . 

You see, I had the parents, the poor parents, come to 
me and say to me how tough it really is. Even though I knew it, 
I really didn't know it the way I thought I did, even though I 
was raised in the environment myself. 

You said to me that it's compelling. Well, certainly 
it's compelling when you walk into a classroom, and you see a 
picture of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln on the board, 
but yet you see all Hispanic and blacks and Asians in the 
classroom. But because you say to the organization that we've 
got to find a way to inspire those kids that I'm compelling and 
that I'm divisive. 

You see, there aren't enough individuals in the State 
of California that are concerned about the plight of those kids 
in those urban cities. Too many of us are just assuming that 
everything is okay because no one is complaining in an organized 
fashion. 

You also said that we need to pull together. I not 
only believe that, but I believe until we have individuals as 
members of these bodies who understand what's really going on in 
those communities, we'll never pull together, because, you see, 
we don't hear from that set of the population. They're not at 
these meetings. They're not at our Board of Governors meetings. 



92 

They can't afford to travel. 

But when someone comes and wants to really try, and 
wants to really represent them, and believes that the body is 
really interested in embracing and learning more about what's 
happening in those communities that you see many of us don't 
even walk in, we're afraid of those environments. 

So, I say to you that if I could go down to my school 
district, and you would find thousands of people, even the Star 
News, which is our major newspaper, found it necessary to, on 
the front page of the Sunday Times — of their Sunday paper, 
excuse — to indicate some of the things that I was advocating, 
and how they not only felt that they were sound, but they felt 
that if we don't begin to embrace some of these philosophies — 
and all I'm trying to do is say for us to come into open and 
honest dialogue about these issues. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I understand. 

Senator Petris . 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't want to be unkind, but in 
view of your last statement, how do you explain your re-election 
defeat by those same people? 

DR. SMITH: It was a voucher issue. That was the 
only issue. 

SENATOR PETRIS: Was that the main issue? 

DR. SMITH: That was the only issue. It was, oh, 
he's great in terms of understanding, and he's brought a 
tremendous amount of stability to the table. 

In fact, the union wrote a very, very wrong article 
to the Star News , and it was printed, saying I was the only 



93 

friend of teachers on that board. 

But when it came to the voucher initiative, all of a 
sudden, we found that we can't talk about everything openly. 
And that was a time where, let's part company, because you seem 
to be talking about something that threatens our strength. 

And I'm saying, I don't want to threaten your 
strength. I want to figure out a way to have 80 percent of our 
students, who are performing at a D — I'm trying to tell you a 
D — if they're performing at a D grade point average, how many 
do you have that must have a failing grade point average to have 
a D in the aggregate? Thousands. But it was never discussed. 
And systematically, it was figured out, this guy is a threat; 
this guy is exposing the real truth, and he's going to cause 
work for us . 

That's what was happening on our school board. 

SENATOR PETRIS: I don't know. It sounds like a 
pretty good bunch of teachers . 

I get the compliant that they just pass them no 
matter what they do in class. They really should get an F, but 
they get a passing grade. Teacher doesn't want to put up with 
them, so they get a C, or you know, they get a C-, and that's a 
common complaint that we hear up here. The teachers are not 
getting to the students , and they ' re not grading them properly 
just to move them along. 

Now, if there's a bunch of teachers that give them 
Ds, it seems to me like they're trying to send somebody a 
signal . 

DR. SMITH: That's true, but also, a number of those 



94 

students are getting poor grades because they don't come to 
school. We have some high schools where you have a 30-40 
percent attendance rate. I mean, that's saying that on any 
given day, 60 or 70 — and on the aggregate, we only have a 7 8 
percent attendance rate. That means any given day, you'll find 
22 percent of our students are doing something other than being 
in school . Those are discouraged learners . 

SENATOR PETRIS: Is that district-wide in that 
district? 

DR. SMITH: That's correct. 

And our program, where we're going after and 
retrieving these dropouts and convincing them to return to 
public education — by the way, Senator. I'm the only one in 
the community doing this, and I know of no one else in L.A. 
County except for Edutrain, who just went out of business. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry, what was the "it"? 

DR. SMITH: We go after kids who have dropped out of 
school, convincing them to return. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, I remember that. 

Hey, I think it'd be great for you to do those 
things. I want to encourage you in your private capacity to 
continue to be a good parent, a good community leader, a good 
businessman, all of those things. 

I hope that the Community College Board will benefit 
by the business advice of the other four business people that 
are on the Board, because that certainly deserves expression. 

And I appreciate the chance to get to know you in 
this setting and give you the highest grades one can for being 



95 

1 an articulate, persuasive exponent of a particular viewpoint. 

2 It's one I just disagree with. 

3 DR. SMITH: That's okay, I understand. And it's okay 

4 for us to disagree. 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We could go further, but it'll 

6 probably be saved for another time, if that's okay with you. 

7 DR. SMITH: Sure. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'd enjoy that. 

9 DR. SMITH: Sure. 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much, sir. 

11 What's the pleasure of the Committee? 

12 SENATOR LEWIS: I move recommendation of 

13 confirmation. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator Lewis. 

15 Call the roll, please. 

16 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

17 SENATOR AYALA: No. 

18 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala no. Senator Lewis. 

19 SENATOR LEWIS: Aye. 

20 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis aye. Senator Petris . 

21 SENATOR PETRIS: No. 

22 SECRETARY WEBB: Petris no. Senator Beverly. 

23 SENATOR BEVERLY: Aye. 

24 SECRETARY WEBB: Beverly aye. Senator Lockyer. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No. 

26 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer no. Fails two to three. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Stays with the Committee. 

DR. SMITH: Thank you for the opportunity to address 



28 



96 



you, and I'll keep working on behalf of kids in the State of 
California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good deal. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately 
5:30 P.M. ] 

— 00O00 — 



97 
CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 

I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the 
State of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that 
the foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 



lis C>? 7 



jj IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 



this Ls* f day of January, 1995. 




MI 
Shorthand 



268-R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.50 per copy 
plus 7.75% California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916)327-2155 






Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 268-R when ordering.